(a) This part sets forth the classification of orthopedic devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution.
(b) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation. A manufacturer who submits a premarket notification submission for a device under part 807 cannot show merely that the device is accurately described by the section title and identification provision of a regulation in this part, but shall state why the device is substantially equivalent to other devices, as required by § 807.87.
(c) To avoid duplicative listings, an orthopedic device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a surgical device) is listed in one subpart only.
(d) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
(e) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 68 FR 14137, Mar. 24, 2003; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Elbert v. Howmedica, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 327 (D. Haw. 1993).
· cites it 2× “1 (a) and (b) explicitly state that the scope of § 888 is limited to classification purposes and “[t]he identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation.” The purpose is simply to…”
Bravman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 842 F. Supp. 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
“1993) (pointing out similar identification provisions for orthopedic devices at 21 C.F.R. § 888.1 (a) and (b) do not prescribe or establish standards for design, composition, or construction; “the identification parameters of the knee joint device in § 88.”
Redd v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (E.D. Mo. 2014).
“” 21 C.F.R. § 888.1 (a) (2013). As the court in James noted, Defendant has not in any way shown that this type of generic identification and classification “is not generally required of each type of medical device that falls under the purview of the MDA.”
— 21 C.F.R. § 888.1(b) — 1 case
Elbert v. Howmedica, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 327 (D. Haw. 1993).
“1 (a) and (b) explicitly state that the scope of § 888 is limited to classification purposes and “[t]he identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation.” The purpose is simply to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.