Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Don Owens, Deputy Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7767

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Nicholas Florko, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch
w. (202) 454-5108

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


March 5, 2009

Congress Must Pass Medical Device Safety Act, Restore Patient Access to Courts

Bill Would Allow Patients Hurt by Faulty Medical Devices To Hold Manufacturers Accountable

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congress should quickly pass legislation introduced today that would restore the rights of patients injured by defective or poorly labeled medical devices to hold manufacturers accountable in court, Public Citizen said today.

The Medical Device Safety Act is sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Public Citizen and nine other public interest groups sent letters to Kennedy, Waxman and Pallone urging prompt action on the bills.

The act would overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which held that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate medical devices severely limits the right of injured patients to sue device manufacturers.

For example, a Minnesota court recently relied on Riegel to dismiss the claims of thousands of patients who were injured or died from a defective implantable defibrillator made by Medtronic. Medtronic reportedly continued to sell the product for nine months after it became aware of the defect. However, the court held that because the FDA approved the product before it went on the market (and before the defect was known), Medtronic cannot be held liable for selling the device, even after it knew that the device was defective.

The Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion Wednesday in Wyeth v. Levine, holding that state-law suits against drug manufacturers can peacefully co-exist with FDA regulation of drugs.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Riegel removed a significant incentive for manufacturers to make their products as safe as possible and to remove unsafe or mislabeled products from the market," said Public Citizen lawyer Allison Zieve, who argued for the Riegels in the Supreme Court case. "By enacting the Medical Device Safety Act, Congress can restore this important layer of consumer protection."

"Congress should put the safety of consumers above the profits of medical device makers. This law will do that by restoring patients’ access to the courts," said David Arkush, director of Pubic Citizen’s Congress Watch division. "Litigation creates important incentives for manufacturers to make products that are as safe as possible and to remove hazardous products from the market when undue risks are discovered. For these and other reasons, the continued availability of state-law remedies is essential."

To read the letter to Waxman and Pallone, go to http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/preemption/articles.cfm?ID=18434.

To read the letter to Kennedy, go to http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/preemption/articles.cfm?ID=18436


Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.