In a gambit to dismiss 1,700 lawsuits against its IVC filter, CR Bard is pressing a novel argument that the FDA’s quickie 510(k) approval process has become more rigorous, thus entitling it to a ruling that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims are preempted by federal law.
The argument is a stretch because courts have often declined to hold claims preempted where medical devices were cleared under the shortcut 510(k) process, as opposed to the more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process.
All of Bard’s IVC filters involved in MDL 2641 – the Recovery, G2, G2, Express, G2 X, EclipseTM, Meridian, and Denali Filters — got approval via the lenient 510(k) process. The case is IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC before US District Judge David G. Campbell in Arizona.
Bard argues in its summary judgment motion that the plaintiff’s master long and short form complaints, asserting state-law claims, are expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.
FDA approval through Sec. 510(k) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 merely requires that a new device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device — but not a review of its safety or efficacy as would happen in a premarket approval application (PMA).
“The 510(k) program has changed greatly since Lohr (Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996),” Bard argues. “In 1990, Congress dramatically altered the 510(k) process in section 12 of the SMDA (Safe Medical Devices Act). The language expressly linked FDA substantial findings to “safety” and “efficacy”/”effectiveness”:
[T]he term “substantially equivalent” or “substantial equivalence” means . . . that the device . . . (ii)(1) has different technological characteristics and the information submitted . . . contains information, including clinical data if deemed necessary by the Secretary, that demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device, and (II) does not raise different questions of safety and efficacy than the predicate device.
Bard says that in its 510(k) approvals:
- The FDA required compliance with special controls.
- FDA required Bard to conduct clinical studies of its filters.
- FDA required additional testing, labeling, and other information during its review.
“These device-specific guidances are intended to address specific risks or issues related to specific devices or device types, and where, as here, FDA has required manufacturers to follow them, they become device-specific federal requirements entitled to preemptive effect,” Bard asserts.
Bard quotes an FDA 2010 Working Report, saying that “the 510(k) program has changed significantly since its inception…. Through various statutory and regulatory modifications over time, it has become a multifaceted premarket review process that is expected to assure that cleared devices, subject to general and applicable special controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and to facilitate innovation in the medical device industry.”
Similar argument failed
A similar argument failed in a motion for summary judgment by Janssen in IN RE: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation. In that case, US District Judge Eldon Fallon ruled:
“The Court in Levine [Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)] held that a state failure to warn claim against a brand-name drug manufacturer was not preempted by federal law, finding that Congress had clearly intended the judicial branch to work in concert with the FDA to protect against unnecessary risk,” the court held.
The judge added, “The court in Guidry [Guidry v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., No. 15-4591, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115447, at *48 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2016)], relying on Wyeth, found that Plaintiff’s pre-market defective design claims under the LPLA [Louisiana Products Liability Act] were not preempted. “Federal law does not prevent a drug manufacturer from complying with this state-imposed duty before seeking FDA approval. Far from impossible, the two are complimentary, preferable, and perhaps necessary to protect the public health and assure the safety, effectiveness, and reliability of drugs.”
Plaintiffs argue that IVC filters cause injuries as follows:
- Migration downward and upward. The IVC Filters can tilt or shift, making them almost impossible to remove.
- Device fracture, causing blood clots (embolism) in the heart, lung, liver and kidneys. Research shows that the devices experienced fracture rates of 37% to 40% after five and a half years.
- Perforation, where stress on the IVC Filter struts leads to fractures that puncture adjacent organs and vessels.