Request Legal Help Now - Free
LAWSUITS NEWS & LEGAL INFORMATION

NO to Corin-Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit

. By
Manhattan, NYIn a lawsuit brought against the medical device maker Corin and its Cormet hip resurfacing system by its former distributor Stryker Orthpaedics, a New York State Court ruled in favor of Corin.

Stryker alleged that the Cormet hip resurfacing system was defective and required replacement surgery. However, the court agreed with Corin that the Medical Device Amendments Act wholly pre-empts this type of claim, due to the FDA's program of review and approval of the device and its warnings.

(In July 2011, Stryker announced it would cease distribution of the Cormet hip resurfacing system because it “no longer fits within Stryker’s long-term product strategy.”)

Preemption is a legal doctrine that means federal law displaces overlapping or related state law. Preemption can be either express or implied. In the context of a Class III medical device (such as DePuy hip replacement system) the applicable federal law is the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. (Most devices, such as Class I and Class II, were marketed after the FDA found them to be “substantially equivalent” to those devices already on the market before the Medical Device Amendments of 1976.)

The court’s ruling is in keeping with, and based in part on a 2008 US Supreme Court case that applied preemption to similar medical devices. The Riegel v. Medtronic Supreme Court decision provided a shield of immunity to medical device makers that went through pre-market approval (PMA) under the concept of federal preemption.

In Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the 510(k) process does not place “requirements” on a device; “substantial equivalence” is not a safety requirement but an exemption from it. In other words, without a federal requirement there can be no preemption of state law tort claims.

The FDA approved the Cormet hip resurfacing system in 2007 (see below) through a process that found the product was safe and effective for its intended use—similar to how DePuy took advantage of the 5012(k) process to get its hip replacement system FDA-approved. The FDA also reviewed and approved the warnings and labels used with the Cormet hip resurfacing system.

READ ABOUT HIP REPLACEMENT LAWSUITS

Hip Replacement Legal Help

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in a similar situation, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a drugs & medical lawyer who may evaluate your hip replacement claim at no cost or obligation.

READER COMMENTS

Posted by

on
My name is Charles A Peck, had a Cormet hip resurfacing on Feb 16 2010.
BY; Dr. Robert Hartman, Twin Cities Ortho.
I had nothing but negative issues until April 18th 2014. Had a complete replacement by Dr Scott Marston, of Health partners.
Had Dr. Hartman told me I was S.O.L. if the cormet implant failed, I would of chosen a different one. BUT HE DID NOT tell me there was no legal action I could take if it failed and it did.

ADD YOUR COMMENT ON THIS STORY

Fields marked * are mandatory. Please read our comment guidelines before posting.

*Name:

Note: Your name will be published with your comment.

*Email Address:

Your email will only be used if a response is needed.
*Your Comment:

Are you the defendant or a subject matter expert on this topic with an opposing viewpoint? We'd love to hear your comments here as well, or if you'd like to contact us for an interview please submit your details here.


Click to learn more about LawyersandSettlements.com
Request Legal Help Now! - Free