Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Rethinking Lohr: Does 'SE' Mean Safe and Effective, Substantially Equivalent, or Both?

63 Pages Posted: 12 Jun 2012  

Ralph Hall, JD

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - School of Law

Michelle K. Mercer

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: June 11, 2012

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

Hall, JD, Ralph and Mercer, Michelle K., Rethinking Lohr: Does 'SE' Mean Safe and Effective, Substantially Equivalent, or Both? (June 11, 2012). Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-24. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2082318 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2082318

Ralph Hall, JD (Contact Author)

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - School of Law ( email )

229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States

Michelle K. Mercer

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Paper statistics

Downloads
25
Abstract Views
390