Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corporation, Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp.

12 F.3d 194, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 1118
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided January 24, 1994·No. 92-2620·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

12 F.3d 194

62 USLW 2564

Shirley DUNCAN, William F. Duncan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
IOLAB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Bessie ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OPTICAL RADIATION CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 92-2620, 92-2801.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 24, 1994.

Edward F. Gerace, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Adele Baker, Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA, for Iolab Corp.

John W. Bussey, III, Elizabeth C. Wheeler, Johnson & Bussey, Orlando, FL, for defendant-appellee.

Bruce N. Kuhlik, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in both cases.

Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for amicus Public Citizen.

Retta M. Riordan, Health Industry Manufacturers Assoc., Washington, DC, for Health Industry.

Lars Noah, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in No. 2620.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocular 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. Secs. 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

Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corporation, Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 1118 (11th Cir. 1994).

12 F.3d 194 (Shirley Duncan, William F. Duncan v. Iolab Corporation, Bessie Rogers v. Optical Radiation Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Connelly v. Iolab Corp.
927 S.W.2d 848 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1996)
Gile v. Optical Radiation Corporation
22 F.3d 540 (Third Circuit, 1994)
No. 93-5555
22 F.3d 540 (Third Circuit, 1994)