Duncan v. Iolab Corp.

Eleventh Circuit

Duncan v. Iolab Corp.

12 F.3d 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1994

DocketNos. 92-2620, 92-2801

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 12 F.3d 194 (Duncan v. Iolab Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.