Bravman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the identification of a heart valve device did not preempt state tort claims, but the Class III approval did preempt the claims
• observing that “the Supreme Court has determined that state law requirements encompass common law tort actions”
• holding there is no indication that Congress intended to preempt state tort actions
• concluding in dicta that “in the Tampon Cases, the courts have tended to find that the FDA’s labeling requirements constitute ‘counterpart’ regulations which preempt state law duty to warn claims, but not design defect claims, or manufacturing claims”
• finding motion in limine seeking to preclude evidence moot when plaintiff conceded it would not introduce evidence defendant was moving to preclude
• PMA process is requirement within meaning of 21 C.F.R. § 808.1(d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).