context: Congress has unmistakably preempted certain state law claims pertaining to medical devices. Congress enacted this express preemption clause to prevent manufacturers from being subject to inconsistent laws and regulations.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2013 WL 3791612, at *4
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that express preemption "preserve[s] federal regulatory authority over medical devices and thereby enable[s] the FDA to balance various statutory objectives"
citation_a.sentence: See Riegel, 552 U.S. at 326, 128 S.Ct. 999 (explaining that without the FDA’s central oversight, juries would “apply the tort law of 50 States to all innovations,” thus subjecting medical device manufacturers to the whims of juries in all 50 states); see also Gavin v. Medtronic, Inc., 2013 WL 3791612, at *4 (E.D.La. July 19, 2013) (noting that express preemption “preserve[s] federal regulatory authority over medical devices and thereby enable[s] the FDA to balance various statutory objectives”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that without the FDA's central oversight, juries would "apply the tort law of 50 States to all innovations," thus subjecting medical device manufacturers to the whims of juries in all 50 states
citation_b.sentence: See Riegel, 552 U.S. at 326, 128 S.Ct. 999 (explaining that without the FDA’s central oversight, juries would “apply the tort law of 50 States to all innovations,” thus subjecting medical device manufacturers to the whims of juries in all 50 states); see also Gavin v. Medtronic, Inc., 2013 WL 3791612, at *4 (E.D.La. July 19, 2013) (noting that express preemption “preserve[s] federal regulatory authority over medical devices and thereby enable[s] the FDA to balance various statutory objectives”).