Source: https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2018/06/california-district-court-rules-that-510k-clearance-relates-to-safety-and-effectiveness.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:49:40+00:00

Document:
A myth that has regrettably gained some traction lately is that the FDA’s clearance of a medical device under the 510(k) substantial equivalence process is unrelated to safety and efficacy. One notably unfair manifestation of this myth is the entry of orders in limine in a number of recent medical device cases excluding evidence of the devices’ 510(k) regulatory pathway. Most or all of these orders rely on the Supreme Court’s 1996 opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, where the Court held that federal law did not preempt certain medical device warnings claims involving 510(k) devices. In so holding, the Court distinguished the pre-1990 510(k) clearance process from the more involved and “rigorous” premarket approval (“PMA”) process and observed that the old 510(k) process was “focused on equivalence, not safety.” 518 U.S. 470, 493 (1996).
The Supreme Court did not hold that 510(k) clearance has no bearing on safety and efficacy, but the language quoted above provides a foothold for those inclined to marginalize the FDA’s role. Indeed, we believe the Supreme Court’s view of the 510(k) process was already outdated in 1996. As we have explained multiple times (including here), the 510(k) clearance process is keyed directly to safety and efficacy, and the Supreme Court has been retreating from Medtronic v. Lohr almost since the day the opinion was filed.
A district judge in Los Angeles recently provided what we think is the correct perspective. The case is Otero v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., No. CV 17-3994, 2018 WL 3012942 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2018), and it is not a preemption case, or even a product liability case. Instead, patients sued the manufacturer of a non-invasive fat-reducing system under California’s permissive consumer fraud statutes, claiming that the company made partial statements that were misleading and failed to disclose material information about the product. Id. at **1-2.
What were the misleading partial statements and omitted facts? The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer stated (truthfully) that the product was “FDA-cleared” and “FDA-cleared as safe and effective.” Id. at *1. And the manufacturer failed to explain the difference between “FDA clearance” on the one hand and “FDA approval” on the other. That’s the omission.
Plaintiffs simply point out that under California law, true statements may mislead reasonable consumers if other relevant information is omitted. Although that is an accurate legal proposition, it does not establish that “FDA-Cleared” gives rise to viable [California statutory] claims, especially because the “mere possibility” that some consumers acting unreasonably will conflate FDA-clearance and FDA-approval is insufficient.
Id. So can a true statement ever support a claim? Under some circumstances not presented here, it appears that one could, although that would be truly exceptional case. Can a true statement support a claim where it is merely possible that a consumer will unreasonably misconstrue it? This court ruled that it cannot.
It appears that this argument relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), which allegedly establishes that “‘[t]he § 510(k) notification process is by no means comparable to the PMA process’ and in no way warrants that the device is safe and effective.” [quoting Plaintiffs’ brief.] Although Medtronic observed that obtaining Section 510(k) clearance is not as onerous as the “rigorous” PMA process, the Supreme Court did not find that the former has no bearing on a device’s safety and effectiveness. In fact, Medtronic acknowledged that “the FDA may well examine § 510(k) applications . . . with a concern for the safety and effectiveness of the device . . .” The Supreme Court later clarified “the FDA simultaneously maintains the exhaustive MPA and the more limited § 510(k) process in order to ensure . . . that the medical devices are reasonably safe and effective.
Id. (emphasis in original). Finally, the district court noted that compliance with general and special controls, which Class II medical devices must do, further provides “reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.” Id. There was no deceptive, no misleading statement. Only true representations of a medical device’s regulatory pathway. That is not the basis for a consumer fraud claim.
Nor is it consumer fraud when a manufacturer does not explain the difference between FDA clearance and FDA approval. The district court ruled that a manufacturer’s duty to consumers is limited to warranty obligations, absent an affirmative misrepresentation or a “safety issue.” Id. at *4. We are not sure this is an accurate statement of a medical device manufacturer’s duty to consumers, especially considering the presence of prescribing physicians (i.e., the learned intermediaries) for many devices. We also can’t imagine a situation where a medical device manufacturer would be under a legal obligation to explain FDA regulations to consumers. But even taking the rule at face value, the plaintiffs alleged no safety risk. Id. at *5. Maybe they were unsatisfied with the results (i.e., effectiveness) and wanted their money back. Whatever their beef was, it was not about safety.
The plaintiffs walked away with their core claims dismissed without leave to amend. The district court gave them another chance to plead that they actually observed other statements that they claimed were misleading, based on counsel’s representations at argument that their clients might have seen them. Id. at **5-6. We don’t know. It seems to us that if those facts existed, the plaintiffs would already have pleaded them. The takeaway for us is the reality that the 510(k) process does tie into safety and efficacy. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 510
 § 510
 § 510