Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: Marc Jay Bern
Profession: Defective Medical Device Lawyer

Category: Medtronic Lawsuit News

A Medtronic lawsuit that has been held up in the federal court system for over two years is back in Huntington federal court.

In February 2006, James LoFiego's family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Medtronic Inc., alleging the company's device caused his death.

During the time in which the case was filed, other suits were also filed in West Virginia, against Medtronic. In an effort to get all the lawsuits handled in a timely manner, the federal courts consolidated them into a multidistrict case and transferred them to federal court in Minnesota, where the company is based.

The case was closed until this month when it was sent back to the U.S. District Court in Huntington.

The suit claims the company's devices failed to detect, control and treat rapid and irregular heartbeats as they should have and accuses Medtronic of negligence/wrongful death, liability due to design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn and breaches of implied and express warranty. In addition, it alleges that Medtronic violated the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act by "engag(ing) in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices ... when it failed to adequately warn consumers and the medical community of the safety risks associated with the Medtronic devices."

LoFiego's lawsuit, which requests a jury trial, also accuses the company of "unjust enrichment" for accepting money and payment from LoFiego, other patients, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies for defective equipment.

The suit claims Medtronic is negligent under strict liability because "the manufacturing process for the defibrillators and other components, did not meet the pre-market approval standards set by the FDA.

Failure to meet the FDA's standards resulted in the devices having dangerous and unreasonable manufacturing defects. The suit further claims the company failed to warn doctors and patients of the potential risks, created by such defects.