Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corp., Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp., 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corp., Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp., 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chancellor Fragoso v. Pelletier (txwd, 2020-01-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chancellor Fragoso v. Pelletier
W.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Although Mr. Fragoso cites to criminal offenses defined in the Texas Penal Code, as a pro se litigant, Mr. Fragoso’s “pleadings are to be construed liberally.” Sama, 669 F.3d at 599 (citing Perez, 3 12 F.3d at 194-95).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
App. Div. 1997).16 16 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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Connelly v. Iolab Corp.
Mo. · 1996 · confidence medium
Michael v. Shiley, Inc., 46 F.3d 1316, 1323 (3rd Cir.1995); Martello v. Ciba Vision Corp., 42 F.3d 1167, 1168 (8th Cir.1994); Nat’l Bank of Commerce of El Dorado v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 38 F.3d 988, 990-91 (8th Cir.1994); Gile v. Optical Radiation Corp., 22 F.3d 540, 542-43 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 429 , 130 L.Ed.2d 342 (1994); Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994); Duncan v. Iolab, 12 F.3d 194 , 195 (11th Cir.1994); Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420-21 (5th Cir.1993); Talbott v. C.R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barbara Mitchell and Gregory Mitchell v. Collagen Corporation
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Bard, Inc., 63 F.3d 25, 30-31 (1st Cir.1995) (adopting analysis of district court, which held implied warranty claim preempted); Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 F.3d 13, 18-19 (1st Cir.1994) (finding implied warranty claim preempted for Class III device not subject to PMA process); Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (same for intraocular lens); cf. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431 , 437 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that implied warranty claim relating to defective design was not preempted with respect to Class III device that had not undergone PMA process an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,368 Margaret Becker v. Optical Radiation Corporation
2d Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Gile, 22 F.3d at 542-44 (common law claims challenging the design of the Stableflex lens and the warnings that accompany it are preempted by the MDA); Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994) (state law claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty relating to an IOL preempted by the MDA); Slater, 961 F.2d at 1333-34 (state claim for defective design of a Stableflex lens preempted by MDA).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Talbott v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 44 ___ ____ ________ _____________________________ F.3d 806, 809 (9th Cir. 1995) (dicta); Martello v. CIBA ________ ____ Vision Corp., 42 F.3d 1167, 1168 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. _____________ _____ denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3904 (1995); Gile v. Optical Radiation ______ ____ _________________ Corp., 22 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. _____ ____________ 429 (1994); Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th ______ ___________ Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d ______ ______________ 1416, 1420-21 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dawson v. Howmedica, Inc.
E.D. Tenn. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Mendes, 18 F.3d at 18 ; Gile, 22 F.3d at 541 ; Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994); Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1332 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992); King, 983 F.2d at 1134.
discussed Cited "see" Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (2×)
SCOTUS · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F. 3d 194 (1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chadwell v. Optical Radiation Corp.
S.D. Ind. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir.1994); Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 84 , 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993); 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); Kemp v. Pfizer, Inc., 835 F.Supp. 1015 (E.D.Mich.1993). 1 In response, Chadwell argued that he could not oppose summary judgment without discovery, which had been stayed by the Cou…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gile v. Optical Radiation Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Rogers, 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir.1994) (affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of ORC on plaintiffs causes of action for design defect, inadequate warning, breach of warranty, and inadequate testing on express preemption grounds); Hinners, 16 F.3d 1096 (11th Cir.1994) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs claims regarding safety and effectiveness of intraocular lenses on preemption grounds).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 93-5555
3rd Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Rogers, 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir.1994) (affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of ORC on plaintiff's causes of action for design defect, inadequate warning, breach of warranty, and inadequate testing on express preemption grounds); Hinners, 15 F.3d 1096 (11th Cir.1994) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claims regarding safety and effectiveness of intraocular lenses on preemption grounds). 33 In the only IOL case within this circuit, Hunsaker v. Surgidev Corp., 818 F.Supp. 744 (M.D.Pa.1992), the court agreed with Slater that "the standards implicit in the state tort actions would …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan
v.
Iolab Corporation, Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp.
92-2620.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 24, 1994.
12 F.3d 194
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

12 F.3d 194

62 USLW 2564

Shirley DUNCAN, William F. Duncan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
IOLAB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Bessie ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OPTICAL RADIATION CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 92-2620, 92-2801.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 24, 1994.

Edward F. Gerace, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Adele Baker, Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA, for Iolab Corp.

John W. Bussey, III, Elizabeth C. Wheeler, Johnson & Bussey, Orlando, FL, for defendant-appellee.

Bruce N. Kuhlik, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in both cases.

Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for amicus Public Citizen.

Retta M. Riordan, Health Industry Manufacturers Assoc., Washington, DC, for Health Industry.

Lars Noah, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in No. 2620.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocular 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. Secs. 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).

2

The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.