SHIRLEY DUNCAN, WILLIAM F. DUNCAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
IOLAB CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; BESSIE ROGERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. OPTICAL RADIATION CORP., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1994-01-24
Nos. 92-2620, 92-2801
Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
12 F.3d 194 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1994) Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocu-lar lenses in the course of treatment for their cataracts. They filed suit against defendants, manufacturers of the lenses, after plaintiffs suffered injuries allegedly caused by the lenses. The issue is whether section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims for negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty. We follow the Seventh Circuit and conclude that it does. See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F. 2d 1330 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 327, 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992). The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr et vir, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996)
    …that decision, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that §360k required pre-emption of at least some common-law claims brought against the manufacturer [*483] of a medical device. See Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F. 3d 194 (1994). After reconsidering its ruling in light of Duncan, the District Court reversed its earlier decision and dismissed the Lohrs’ entire complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. 56 F. 3d 1335 (CA11 1995). Rejecting…
  • Lohr v. Medtronic, Inc., 56 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 1995)
    …ease, Appellee moved for summary judgment, asserting that Appellants’ claims were preempted by the MDA. The district court denied the motion in December 1993, but reconsidered its decision in light of this Court’s decision in Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F. 3d 194 (11th Cir.1994). Upon reconsideration, the district court granted Appellee’s motion for summary-judgment, interpreting Duncan as preempting all state law claims for negligence and strict liability. This appeal follows. II. DISCUSSION The sole is…
    1 / 2
  • Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc., 167 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1999)
    …iew has doubts regarding whether an approval pursuant to that process should preclude subsequent state tort liability. . Medtronic argues that our adoption of Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F. 2d 1330 (7th Cir.1992) in Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F. 3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994) precludes our analysis and conclusions here. Slater, however, involved the preemptive effect of the IDE process, not the PMA process, and therefore does not control our disposition of this case. Moreover, Slater explicitly reli…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw