This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Related letter  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Law and Medicine  • Quality of Care  • Patient Safety/ Medical Error  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In his Commentary on Riegel v Medtronic Inc, Mr Gostin¹ provides what we consider to be a one-sided prolitigation viewpoint inconsistent with the interests of US physicians and their patients. Those interests are more accurately represented by the policies embodied in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and the opinions of 8 of the 9 justices of the United States Supreme Court. The opinion in Riegel highlighted that the plaintiff had a heavily calcified right coronary artery, 5 attempts were made to dilate that artery, and the recommended maximal pressure of 8 atmospheres was exceeded by using 10 atmospheres of pressure. The catheter balloon ruptured on the fifth attempt, leading to complications enumerated by Gostin.²

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's theory that Medtronic defectively designed, tested, inspected, labeled, marketed, and manufactured the catheter, under the common law torts of the state of New York. While . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Stephen Piwinski, MD, MOH
piwinski@uthscsa.edu
University of Texas Health Science Center
San Antonio

Shawn Fitzpatrick, JD
Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich, PC
San Antonio

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Deregulatory Effects of Preempting Tort Litigation: FDA Regulation of Medical Devices
Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. 2008;299(19):2313-2316.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Tort Litigation and Federal Regulation of Medical Devices—Reply
Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. 2008;300(16):1882.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT