Horn v. Thermo Cardiosystems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “any judgment that the [Class III PMA-approved medical device] was unsafe or otherwise substandard would be in direct conflict— i.e., different from — the FDA’s determination that the product was suitable for use”
• emphasizing that the Lohr Court “stated that as long as the plaintiffs’ claims sought to enforce only the specific regulations that the FDA imposed upon the pacemaker, those claims did not constitute different or additional requirements and were not preempted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).