Duncan v. Iolab Corp.

12 F.3d 194
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided January 24, 1994·No. Nos. 92-2620, 92-2801·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

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. See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 327, 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).

The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194 (11th Cir. 1994).

12 F.3d 194 (Duncan v. Iolab Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc.
167 F.3d 1367 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Fiore v. Collagen Corp.
930 P.2d 477 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1996)
Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp.
38 Cal. App. 4th 307 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Talbott v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
First Circuit, 1995
Lohr v. Medtronic, Inc.
Eleventh Circuit, 1995
Chadwell v. Optical Radiation Corp.
902 F. Supp. 830 (S.D. Indiana, 1995)
Dawson v. Howmedica, Inc.
886 F. Supp. 1402 (E.D. Tennessee, 1995)
Anguiano v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
44 F.3d 806 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Kus v. Sherman Hospital
644 N.E.2d 1214 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1995)
Burnett v. Pfizer, Inc.
864 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Kentucky, 1994)