Completely happy Valentine’s Day. To have a good time, we are going to focus on a courtroom choice that we love.

Preemption and the Ohio Product Legal responsibility Act (OPLA) are two of one of the best buddies a drug/machine protection lawyer has.  Each present up in Groeschen v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 2024 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pleas Feb. 2, 2024). Because the Groeschen courtroom defined, this case has a “prolonged historical past.”  In 2017, the plaintiff sued his eye physician professionals and the producer of contact lenses, claiming that the lenses prompted him to undergo severe accidents, together with imaginative and prescient loss.  The plaintiff alleged that the lenses malfunctioned as the results of some unspecified faulty manufacturing course of or chemical contamination, and that the defendants didn’t warn him of the potential accidents.  

The producer moved to dismiss the grievance, after which the First Amended Criticism.  In 2021, the courtroom granted that movement to dismiss, partly, with preemption being the premise for dismissal. The courtroom additionally ordered a extra particular assertion with respect to the manufacturing defect declare. That extra particular (besides it actually wasn’t – extra on that later) assertion arrived within the type of a Second Amended Criticism.  The producer once more moved to dismiss. In the meantime, discovery happened. The defendants met their discovery obligations.  The plaintiff … not a lot.  The producer then moved for abstract judgment. The grounds for the abstract judgment movement have been pretty simple: the plaintiff had no proof.  After the courtroom denied the plaintiff’s request foradditional time to conduct discovery, the  plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Second Amended Criticism. The courtroom by no means dominated on both the movement to dismiss the Second Amended Criticism or the movement for abstract judgment. 

Thus concluded Groeschen I. 

Now we get to Groeschen II.  In 2023, the plaintiff refiled the case. There was a Criticism.  Then there was a First Amended Criticism.  In case you’re maintaining depend all through the lifetime of this case in its varied iterations, we are actually as much as the fifth pleading total.  And but the claims have been basically the identical, together with the claims (negligence, merchandise legal responsibility, breach of implied guarantee) that have been beforehand held to be preempted.  

Have you ever heard the definition of madness as doing the identical factor and anticipating a special outcome?

The producer moved to dismiss the newest (however not biggest) grievance.  We’re guessing that it was straightforward sufficient to mud off the previous movement to dismiss and abstract judgment movement, change just a few dates, after which file and serve. There’s nothing insane about doing the identical factor and anticipating the identical outcome. 

The contact lenses have been a category III medical machine, which means that that they had gone by the rigorous Pre Market Approval (PMA) course of, and which means that any authorized declare making an attempt to impose “any requirement” that “is completely different from, or along with” and FDA requirement can be preempted.  There was no getting round the truth that the plaintiff’s claims insisted that the medical machine at situation – the lenses— ought to have been manufactured, designed, or labeled in another way from the way permitted by the FDA. 

Properly, perhaps there was one potential manner of getting round preemption, and by now nearly all of you possibly can predict that the plaintiff resorted to the Riegel parallel declare exception.  (Has any SCOTUS dictum visited extra mischief? Impressed extra frivolity by hapless plaintiff legal professionals?  Made needed extra indignant blogposts?) If the plaintiff might level to a violation of FDA rules that parallels a state legislation violation, his claims might conceivably squeeze by the “slender hole” and evade preemption. However such parallel claims require greater than conclusory violation claims. This was the difficulty that prompted the Groeschen I courtroom manner again in 2021 to ask the plaintiff to writer a extra particular assertion. However in a number of complaints, the plaintiff didn’t plead any violation of any explicit federal specification.  Nor did the plaintiff determine explicit Ohio state-law duties that parallel any FDA requirement.  Inevitably ineluctably indubitably, the Groeschen II courtroom pushed the entice door button: “Plaintiff’s incapability to allege the weather of a parallel declare able to surviving preemption after 5 complaints in two instances over six years requires dismissal of all of Plainitff’s claims in opposition to [the manufacturer] as preempted.”

The courtroom nearly sounds exasperated. 

Possibly it was. We are saying that as a result of, after hammering the plaintiff on preemption grounds, the Groeschen courtroom held that even when preemption didn’t apply, the plaintiff’s claims for negligence, breach of warranties, and “widespread legislation tort claims for breach of implied guarantee/strict legal responsibility” have been abrogated by the OPLA, which precludes separate common-law claims.  The claims that in any other case might proceed through the OPLA nonetheless fail, as a result of they fail to specify any explicit design, warning, or manufacturing defect.  Furthermore, the OPLA precludes client fraud claims in product legal responsibility instances. Lastly, the OPLA (bless it) bars punitive damages in opposition to FDA-approved merchandise. 

The plaintiff misplaced, and the courtroom’s reliance on a number of grounds makes an enchantment by the plaintiff all of the harder. 

Groeschen is an efficient choice that was a very long time coming. We’re grateful to our esteemed colleagues and buddies at Greenberg Traurig — Marcella Ducca and Greg Ostfeld — for bringing this case to our consideration, and much more grateful for his or her wonderful efforts in incomes such a tremendous outcome.