ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Drug and Device Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Drug and Device Law

Supplemental PMA = Preemption

By James M. Beck and Mark Herrmann

Any time that a manufacturer of a PMA device modifies that device in a way that affects its safety or effectiveness, the manufacturer must file a PMA "supplement". We've posted before that PMA supplements should be, and generally are, accorded the same preemptive effect as initial PMAs. The other day the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed. Its discussion of why PMA supplements are every bit as preemptive as initial PMAs is the most thorough we've yet seen. If you're interested in preemption and PMA supplements, you'll want to read it. Blunt v. Medtronic, Inc., ___ N.W.2d ___, 2009 WL 367768, at *7-11 (Wis. Feb. 17, 2009)

Full post as published by Drug and Device Law on February 18, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0125 secs (new cache)