Rethinking Lohr: Does 'SE' Mean Safe and Effective, Substantially Equivalent, or Both?
Ralph Hall, JD
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - School of Law
Michelle K. Mercer
affiliation not provided to SSRN
June 11, 2012
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-24
For fifteen years Courts and Litigants have cited to the Supreme Court case, Medtronic, Inc v. Lohr to find product liability preemption for 510(k) cleared devices. When the Supreme Court decided Lohr in 1996, the Supreme Court correctly assessed the 510(k) system as it existed in 1982 — the year the product in question in Lohr was cleared by FDA. However, the statutory analysis in Lohr is valid today only if there have not been any substantial or material changes in the statute. And, as this Article discusses, it is beyond a question that the 510(k) system in 2012 is very different from the 510(k) system that existed thirty years ago. Therefore, the conclusions in Lohr must be reassessed in light of the current 510(k) system.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 63working papers series
Date posted: June 12, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 1.016 seconds