. To escape preemption by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, a plaintiff claiming injury from a Class III medical device approved by the FDA must show that her suit arises from conduct that violates the FDCA but would also give rise to recovery under state law even in the absence of the FDCA. Here, plaintiff claimed defendant was liable for failing to train physicians adequately in the proper methods for installing the device. The FDA did impose training requirements on Class III device manufacturers, so arguably the complaint alleged conduct violating the FDCA. However, California law does not independently impose any obligation on a manufacturer to train doctors in the practice of their profession. Thus, the claim did not meet the second requirement to escape federal preemption and was properly dismissed.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1 (Dondero, J.); April 29, 2016; 2016 WL 1732243