green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
5.1 score
“the scope of the preemption ... is limited____ it is not the sort of blanket preemption that we find in erisa, which supersedes 'any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Blanchard v. Collagen Corp.
the mda does not preempt such claims as negligent implantation or removal of devices, or claims arising out of contaminated devices
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Goldstein v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
the scope of the preemption ... is limited____ it is not the sort of blanket preemption that we find in erisa, which supersedes 'any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Richman v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
if the fda in a valid regulation under the medical devices amendments requires x, and x relates to safety or effectiveness, a state cannot, whether through statute, regulation, or common law decision, require non-x or x y.
cited
Cited "see"
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,368 Margaret Becker v. Optical Radiation Corporation
See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330,1333 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Duncan v. Iolab Corp.
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).
cited
Cited "see"
Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corporation, Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp.
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.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jennifer Stamps v. Collagen Corporation
See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1333 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992) (finding that MDA Class III devices developed under the FDA “Investigational Device Exemption” (“IDE") regulations are preempted from state tort law liability; although IDE regulations "do not specify the safe and effective design [,] they specify the procedures for determining whether the experimental design is safe and effective" and thus "are requirements relating to safety and effectiveness and they can therefore have preemptive effect”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lynnbrook Farms v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation
Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 67 F.3d 1268, 1276 (7th Cir.1995); see also Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1333 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 917 , 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Petix v. Kabi Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc.
See also Bravman, supra, at 755 (observing that “the Supreme Court has determined that state law requirements encompass common law tort actions”). *97 In Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 756 F.Supp. 370 (N.D.Ill.1991), aff'd, 961 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992), the plaintiff, after having an implant of an intraocular lens in his left eye during cataract surgery, brought an action against the defendant manufacturer based on negligence, strict products liability, and breach of an implied warranty after he encountered significant diffic…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Subby MARTELLO, Appellant, v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, Appellee
Stamps, 984 F.2d at 1421-22 ; Bravman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 842 F.Supp. 747, 760-61 (S.D.N.Y.1994); see also Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1333 (7th Cir.) (MDA’s procedural requirements have same preemptive effect as substantive requirements), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parenteau v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics, Inc.
See also Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1331 (7th Cir.) (MDA preemption “is limited to cases in which the FDA ‘has established specific counterpart regulations [to the challenged state requirements] or there are other specific requirements applicable to a particular device under’ the federal act” (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 808.1 (d))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Medtronic, Inc.
Additionally, the regulations make clear that the state requirements to be preempted include those “established by ... court decision.” 21 C.F.R. § 808.1 (b); see also Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1333 (7th Cir.1992) (insofar as state tort law requires defendant to do more than required by FDA’s regulations, plaintiff’s cause of action is preempted, “for it ... unquestionably ... impostes] in the name of state law a different requirement relating to safety and effectiveness from that imposed by federal law”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bravman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
See, e.g., Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330, 1331 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992); Mitchell v. Iolab Corp., 700 F.Supp. 877, 878-79 (E.D.La.1988) (no federal preemption of state tort law); Covey v. Surgidev Corp., 815 F.Supp. 1089, 1094-95 (N.D.Ohio 1993) (federal preemption under specific counterpart regulations governing experimental devices.). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Covey v. Surgidev Corp.
See, e.g., Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 327 , 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992); Stamps v. Versus Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416 (5th Cir.1993); King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130, 1134 (1st Cir.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Slater
v.
Optical Radiation Corp.
v.
Optical Radiation Corp.
No. 92-303.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 13, 1992.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.