The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Maryland Appeals Court Revives Medtronic Infuse Injury Suit

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Eleanor Smith

doctor hand

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently revived a medical device products liability case, ruling that the claim was not preempted by federal law.

The personal injury claims, brought by Steven McCormick together with his wife, arose from the so-called “off-label” promotion of a medical device, called the Infuse Bone Graft. Manufactured by defendant Medtronic, the device left McCormick disabled and unemployed allegedly due to this improper “off-label” use.

The Infuse Bone Graft was developed by Medtronic and was approved by the FDA in 2002. The three components of the device consist of:

  • A genetically-engineered protein that stimulates bone growth.
  • A collagen sponge.
  • A cage that holds the vertebrae in place to direct the development of bone growth.

 

The protein serves to spur the bone growth necessary to achieve fusion. The Infuse Bone Graft was created by Medtronic to replace the conventional method of performing spinal-fusion surgery.

Only one safe approach

The Infuse Bone Graft’s label requires surgeons to utilize an anterior approach, during which the surgeon approaches the spine through the front of the body. The device cannot be used without a cage component, making the anterior approach the only safe and viable option for device implementation.

McCormick underwent spinal-fusion surgery conducted by defendant Dr. Rosner to relieve his persistent back pain. Dr. Michael K. Rosner, M.D., allowed a Medtronic sales representative, defendant Vincent Profitt, to be present in the operating room during McCormick’s surgery.

Dr. Rosner used an inappropriate amount of the genetically-engineered protein component of the device and used a Medtronic cage that had not been approved by the FDA for use with the Infuse device. Dr. Rosner also took a posterior approach during his surgery.

Steven McCormick became permanently disabled in 2008, and in the spring of 2010, his physicians discovered a narrowing of the cervical disc space where the Infuse device had been implanted. McCormick underwent revision surgery to remove the “bony overgrowth” in the fall of 2010, during which his surgeon had to “chisel away the excess bone-growth” caused by the Infuse device.

McCormick learned approximately one year later that he had two nodules in his lungs that he must monitor to ensure they do not become cancerous.

Extensive and illegal effort

According to the McCormicks, Medtronic engaged in an extensive and illegal effort to promote the off-label use of the device by means of a posterior approach without the required cage. Medtronic promoted this practice by providing physicians with information from consultants. Sales of the device exceeded $900 million dollars in 2010, of which more than 85 percent resulted from improper off-label procedures.

Additionally, the genetically-engineered protein component of the Infuse Bone Graft is a cancer-promoting substance, a fact the McCormicks claim Medtronic knew about and failed to inform the public or medical community. The Spine Journal, which is a medical periodical, devoted an entire issue in July 2011 to the concerns surrounding the use of the Infuse device. Journal discussed Medtronic’s failure to report accurately adverse side-effects that occurred during clinical trials, as well as Medtronic’s downplaying of the risks associated with the device.

Sales rep in the operating room

The McCormicks brought their claims collectively against Medtronic, a Medtronic subsidiary, the Medtronic sales representative who was in the operating room during surgery, and Dr. Michael K. Rosner. The claims as against Medtronic were asserted for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

The claim as against Dr. Rosner alleged his failure to obtain informed consent. The McCormicks, as husband and wife, then asserted a joint claim for loss of consortium. The circuit court dismissed the claims against Medtronic during the case’s original proceedings but did not render a final judgment.

Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, which “swept back some state obligations and imposed a regime of detailed federal oversight.” The MDA expressly preempts certain state-law requirements with respect to federally regulated medical devices.

The MDA specifically preempts requirements that relate to the safety or effectiveness of the device and are different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under the MDA itself. This preemption of state-law claims only occurs when a manufacturer has complied with federal law, and not when the manufacturer has in some way violated federal law.

Scylla and Charybdis

The Court, citing Greek mythology, determined that a plaintiff, such as Steven McCormick, can survive a state-law tort claim concerning an allegedly defective medical device only by steering between the Scylla of express preemption and the Charybdis of the implied preemption of claims that exist solely by virtue of the FDCA. This is a challenge the plaintiff must overcome by avoiding one obstacle without colliding with another, having the choice between two evils.

The court articulated this loophole by saying, “The conduct on which the plaintiff’s claim is premised must violate the FDCA if the claim is to escape express preemption, but the conduct must also be the type of conduct that would traditionally give rise to liability under state law even if the FDCA had never been enacted.”

The Special Appeals Court reversed the trial court, specifically the trial  court’s conclusion that federal law preempts the claims for breach of any express warranties that Medtronic may have made in voluntary communications with the public or members of the medical professions outside of the context of the FDA-mandated and FDA approved labeling for the device.

The full case opinion, which was reported on October 6, 2014, in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland during the September Term, is titled Steven L. McCormick, et ux. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.

Posted in Blog, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.