Easterling v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on Mitchell and stating that state claims, even those based upon general duty of care, are preempted if have effect of imposing requirements on device that are different from, or in addition to, federal requirements
• relying on Mitchell and stating that state claims, even those based upon general duty of care, are preempted if they have effect of imposing requirements on device that are different from, or in addition to, federal requirements
• relying on Mitchell and stating that state claims, even those based upon general duty of care, are preempted if have effect of imposing requirements on device that are different from, or in addition to, federal requirements
• state law claims for negligence and strict liability related to pacemaker despite manufacturer’s adherence to FDA PMA requirements preempted by MDA
• state law claims for negligence and strict liability related to pacemaker despite manufacturer's adherence to FDA PMA requirements preempted by MDA
• FDA spends an average of 1,200 hours reviewing each device.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).