Carl Michael Seibert v. Lorri Stricklen and Zoe Aldige (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CV-18-901928).

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 plaintiffs \failure-to-warn claims\ are preempted because they \would require [the defendant] to provide different warnings and instructions from those approved by the FDA\
• holding that state common law claims and duties were preempted because they were “in severe tension with” requirements established by FDA in approving device
• holding that premarket approval of heart pump imposed “specific federal requirements” that preempt state law claims of manufacturing and design defect and defect based on failure to warn
• holding that the plaintiffs “failure-to-warn claims” are preempted because they “would require [the defendant] to provide different warnings and instructions from those approved by the FDA”
• holding that failure-to-warn claim was preempted by Medical Device Amendments
• holding that failure-to-warn claim was preempted by Medical Device Amendments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).