The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last week held a hearing on the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (S. 540), which if enacted would overturn the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in Reigel v. Medtronic. The Supreme Court ruled that the MDA bars state law product liability claims against medical device companies based on alleged defects in products that had received approval through FDA’s stringent premarket approval (PMA) process. The PMA process is used only in class III devices—devices FDA deems to be “high risk,” like pacemakers. The devices that are marketed as PMAs represent cutting edge science and are critical to public health.
We have posted on this legislation before here at MassTort Defense. In addition to ignoring the important benefits of a uniform federal standard and the chaos of allowing devices to be regulated by litigation, the bill would would stifle innovation in the medical device industry and result in lost jobs, especially at smaller device companies. Obviously the bill is favored by overzealous trial lawyers and the legislators they support.
Testifying at the hearing were a variety of supporters of the bill, including academics who argued that preemption deprives victims of their right to compensation from the wrongdoers who injured them — without convincingly responding to the concerns that would be raised by the new regime which allow juries throughout the country not only to impose requirements that are inconsistent with FDA determination, but that differ from one state court to another. The witness panel had no representative from the device industry.
The legislation would take away primary responsibility for device safety from the FDA and put it in the hands of lay jurors who have little to no understanding to the science involved, and who will listen to plaintiff’s lawyers arguing about a single alleged injury without regard to the many of patients potentially safely aided by the device. Democratic supporters argued that no matter how diligently and effectively the FDA does its job, it simply cannot “guarantee that no defective, dangerous, and deadly medical device will reach consumers.” The notion that any regulatory regime can “guarantee” defect-free products is misguided. And to think that lay juries will do a better job of balancing product risks and benefits is foolish. Risk is inherent in all medical devices, and small numbers of patient injuries does not mean a device is defective.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) has urged Congress to reject the legislation, noting it would increase health care costs and decrease patient access to life-saving medical technology. As the debate is ongoing about health care reform, legislation that will create more litigation, increase health care costs, and render it harder for medical device manufacturers to invest in promising new technology, hardly seems wise.