杏十八新茶分享

 

Perez v. Nidek Co., LTD.

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Preemption
  • Date Filed: 03-25-2013
  • Case #: 10-55577
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge McKeown for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and Trott

In order for a state-law claim to escape preemption by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (鈥淔DCA鈥), the plaintiff must be suing for conduct that violates the FDCA, not suing because the conduct violates the FDCA.

Robert Perez, Brett Harbach, and Nancy Art (collectively, 鈥淧erez鈥) received LASIK eye surgery with a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System (鈥渢he Laser鈥). At the time, Perez did not know the FDA had not approved the Laser鈥檚 use for correcting farsightedness. Perez did not allege any injury from the surgery, nor that the surgery was ineffective. Instead, Perez brought claims under the Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (鈥渢he Human Subjects Act鈥) and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (鈥淐LRA鈥), as well as common-law claims of civil conspiracy, omission, and aiding and abetting. The panel found that Perez had standing to sue the 鈥渢wo doctors who performed surgery on the named plaintiffs,鈥 but Perez did not have standing to sue the named and unnamed doctors who did not perform surgery on the named plaintiffs but who 鈥渁llegedly performed surgery on other individuals in the proposed class.鈥 In addition, Perez did not have standing to sue any of the defendants under the CLRA because he did not demonstrate that he faced 鈥渁 real or immediate threat of an irreparable injury.鈥 The panel found that because Perez鈥檚 claims did not fit the definition of 鈥渕edical injury鈥 under either 搂 24174(a) or 搂 24174(b) of the Human Subjects Act, the Act did not protect the surgeries. The panel also found that Perez鈥檚 common-law fraud by omission claim was expressly preempted by the preemption provision in the Medical Device Amendments (鈥淢DA鈥).鈥 Even if not expressly preempted, the fraud by omission claim was impliedly preempted because it conflicts with the enforcement scheme of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (鈥淔DCA鈥). Citing no case based solely on a claim for 鈥渇ailure to disclose lack of FDA approval,鈥 Perez could not bring a claim that alone rested on patients not being disclosed information regarding premarket approval. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top