Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Duncan v. Iolab Corp.

12 F.3d 194

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1994-01-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocu-lar lenses in the course of treatment for their cataracts. They filed suit against defendants, manufacturers of the lenses, after plaintiffs suffered injuries allegedly caused by the lenses. The issue is whether section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims for negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty. We follow the Seventh Circuit and conclude that it does.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Duncan v. Iolab Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
DUNCAN v. IOLAB CORPORATION,12 F.3d 194(11th Cir. 1994)
SHIRLEY DUNCAN, WILLIAM F. DUNCAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. IOLAB
CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
BESSIE ROGERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. OPTICAL RADIATION CORP.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Nos. 92-2620, 92-2801.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
January 24, 1994.
Page 195
Edward F. Gerace, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Adele Baker, Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer Tatum, Richmond, VA, for Iolab Corp.

John W. Bussey, III, Elizabeth C. Wheeler, Johnson Bussey, Orlando, FL, for defendant-appellee.

Bruce N. Kuhlik, Covington Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in both cases.

Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for amicus Public Citizen.

Retta M. Riordan, Health Industry Manufacturers Assoc., Washington, DC, for Health Industry.

Lars Noah, Covington Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in No. 2620.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocular lenses in the course of treatment for their cataracts. They filed suit against defendants, manufacturers of the lenses, after plaintiffs suffered injuries allegedly caused by the lenses. The issue is whether section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938,21 U.S.C. § 301et seq., preempts plaintiffs' state law claims for negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty. We follow the Seventh Circuit and conclude that it does.See Slaterv. Optical Radiation Corp.,961 F.2d 1330(7th Cir.),cert.denied,___ U.S. ___,113 S.Ct. 327,121 L.Ed.2d 246(1992).

[2] The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.