Pondering In regards to the FDA’s Various Abstract Reporting Program


Photo of Bexis

Bexis has been updating the preemption chapter of his treatise on drug/system product legal responsibility litigation.  He got here throughout a number of preemption choices involving defendants who employed the FDA’s “different abstract reporting” (“ASR”) system that the company operated for about 20 years, “from 1997 by June 2019.”  FDA, “Medical Machine Reporting (MDR): Methods to Report Medical Machine Issues,” at MDR Information Recordsdata, Various Abstract Reviews (out there right here).  Bexis got here throughout preemption circumstances mentioning ASR reporting with respect to surgical staplers, Bell v. Covidien LP, 2023 WL 3006175, at *2 (D. Mass. April 19, 2023), breast implants, e.g., Gravitt v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 17668486, at *3 (N.D. Unwell. Dec. 14, 2022); D’Addario v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 1214896, at *3 (D.N.J. March 31, 2021), and contraceptive units.  McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure Inc., 2019 WL 3764658, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Could 9, 2019).  It seems that plaintiffs try to show numerous defendants’ use of this FDA-created and approved program right into a tort (variously described as warning defect or a variant of a misrepresentation declare.

The FDA’s ASR program started in 1997, when the company:

decided that many antagonistic occasions involving the units listed beneath might be reported to the Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) on a quarterly foundation utilizing a abstract reporting format in lieu of particular person occasion experiences . . . with out adversely affecting FDA’s means to watch and react to such occasions.

FDA “Abstract Reporting Approval For Antagonistic Occasions” (July 31, 1997) (copy out there right here).  “[U]pon notification of acceptance, producers of the listed units can be granted . . . an exemption from the person occasion reporting necessities.”  Id.  The ASR program was initially open to regulated producers of twelve system classes;  Intravascular (I.V.) Administration Set, Intravascular Catheter, Implanted Subcutaneous Intravascular Catheter, Mechanical/Hydraulic Incontinence Machine, Urological Catheter, Endosseous Implant, Diagnostic Intravascular Catheter, Mechanical/Hydraulic Impotence Machine, Mechanical Coronary heart Valve, Silicone Gel-filled Inside Inflatable Breast Prosthesis, Saline Inside Inflatable Breast Prosthesis, and Everlasting Pacemaker Electrode.  Id.

A 1999 FDA steering doc described the ASR program as “created underneath the authority of 21 CFR Half 803.19.”  FDA, CDER, “Steering for Business − Medical Machine Reporting − Various Abstract Reporting (ASR) Program, 2000 WL 34503093, at *1 (Oct. 19, 2000).  Medical system producers might “request[ FDA] approval to take part within the ASR program.”  Id.

On October 1, 1999, we (FDA) instituted new strategies for the gathering of abstract reporting knowledge.  Antagonistic occasions included in abstract experiences ought to be submitted in a line-item format, reporting chosen knowledge parts by particular person antagonistic occasion, quite than by the earlier technique of grouping antagonistic occasions by system identification quantity.

Id.  “By legislation, producers could request exemptions, variances or options to reporting necessities underneath 21 C.F.R. §803.19.  Below this provision, the FDA had allowed different abstract experiences (ASRs).”  FDA, MDR Information Recordsdata, Various Abstract Reviews (Feb. 18, 2022) (out there right here).

Product legal responsibility plaintiffs didn’t just like the ASR program, principally as a result of it didn’t require individualized reporting of each antagonistic occasion and since the FDA didn’t intend to incorporate abstract experiences in its publicly out there databases.  “Various Abstract Reviews,” supra (“ASR experiences weren’t made publicly out there earlier than 2019 as a result of they weren’t submitted in a format suitable with the general public . . . database”).  Ultimately, in 2019, the FDA discontinued ASR reporting, citing “transparency.”  FDA, “Assertion on company’s efforts to extend transparency in medical system reporting (June 21, 2019) (out there right here).

We have been significantly intrigued by a reference in Bell to an argument that “mere utilization” of the FDA-authorized ASR program couldn’t be a tort as a result of it was “expressly preempted.”  2023 WL 3006175, at *7.  Sadly, that argument was “not elaborate[d] additional” and denied with out being substantively addressed.  Id.  The product in Bell was a Class II §510(okay) medical system.  For the reason that anachronistic determination in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), remains to be bars virtually all preemption arguments in litigation over 510(okay) units, we’ve given some thought to what such an specific preemption argument would appear like.  Right here’s our greatest guess.

It must adjust to Lohr. We begin again in 1999, when coincidentally the FDA was tinkering with the ASR program, as already mentioned.  Bexis made a profitable preemption argument in Greenwood v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 1999 WL 1133313, at *3 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia Co. Jun. 9, 1999), attraction quashed, 750 A.second 381 (Pa. Tremendous. 1999).  This was after Lohr, however earlier than the Supreme Courtroom revisited medical system specific preemption in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008).

Greenwood held solely one of many plaintiff’s theories preempted, a selected design defect allegation.  Supposedly, the product was “defectively designed by the Defendant as a result of [it was] made from chrome steel, not titanium.”  1999 WL 1133313, at *2.  Nevertheless, the FDA had promulgated an “identification” regulation for this system that acknowledged it was “made from an alloy, reminiscent of chrome steel.”  21 C.F.R. §888.3050(a).  Construing Lohr’s gloss on the medical system specific preemption clause requiring “particular counterpart laws or different particular necessities relevant to a selected system” as a preemption prerequisite, 518 U.S. at 498 (quoting 21 C.F.R. §808.1(d)), Greenwood discovered that declare − the system’s chrome steel composition as a design defect – preempted due to the device-specific point out of “chrome steel” within the relevant regulation.

The FDA has decided that the [product] is a category II “spinal interlaminal fixation orthosis”, and {that a} system matching that description could also be made from an alloy reminiscent of chrome steel.  See 21 C.F.R. §888.3050(a).  The FDA had cleared the [product] and decided that it fell inside §888.3050(a) on the time the Plaintiff [had it implanted].  Due to this fact, underneath federal legislation the usage of chrome steel within the manufacturing of [the product] will not be a design defect.

Greenwood, 1999 WL 1133313, at *3.

Then Riegel got here alongside and formulated the present two-part take a look at for specific preemption in medical system litigation:  that state legal guidelines are expressly preempted if, first, the Federal Authorities has established “particular necessities relevant to a selected system”; and, second, the plaintiff’s claims are based mostly on “state necessities” which are “totally different from, or along with” the federal necessities.  552 U.S. at 321-23.  Class III pre-market accredited units mechanically fulfill the primary prong of this take a look at, id. at 322-23, whereas underneath Lohr’s reasoning, the §510(okay) path to market normally doesn’t, as a result of its “necessities mirror essential however totally generic considerations about system regulation typically.”  518 U.S. at 501

However there are exceptions.  Greenwood demonstrated considered one of them.  Justice Breyer’s concurrence in Lohr, with out which there wouldn’t have been a majority opinion as to design or warning claims, mentioned one other:  “a federal MDA regulation requires a 2-inch wire” would “pre-empt a state-law tort motion that premises legal responsibility upon the defendant producer’s failure to make use of a 1-inch wire.”  518 U.S. at 504.  Given such potentialities, Justice Breyer was “not satisfied that future incidents of MDA pre-emption of common-law claims can be ‘few’ or ‘uncommon.’”  Id. at 508 (quotation omitted).  If a given FDA requirement is sufficiently system particular and granular, it ought to fulfill Lohr’s specificity gloss whatever the system’s classification.

We expect that the identical might be stated a few producer’s acquiring FDA permission to take part within the company’s different abstract reporting program.  That program was system particular, being out there solely to a specified checklist of system sorts – the twelve classes listed in 1997 plus any subsequent additions.  Every firm’s participation required a separate utility to, and approval by the FDA.  As Lohr held, there have to be “a cautious comparability between the allegedly pre-empting federal requirement and the allegedly pre-empted state requirement.”  518 U.S. at 500.  Thus, in the case of the small print of easy methods to report antagonistic occasions, and the FDA’s deliberate determination to institute the ASR program in its place reporting system, the FDA’s approval of a defendant’s participation ought to be preemptive on the query of how antagonistic occasion reporting is to happen.

However what if the producer allegedly didn’t make its experiences in compliance with the FDA’s restrictions on what kinds of antagonistic occasions have been topic to ASR reporting?  These are the allegations that we see in circumstances like Bell, 2023 WL 3006175, at *6, and Gravitt, 2022 WL 17668486, at *3.  That sort of declare – difficult the sufficiency and accuracy of data submitted to the FDA in accordance with FDA laws – falls inside the core of implied preemption underneath Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Authorized Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).

So, if a plaintiff contends {that a} defendant abused the ASR program, that may be a Buckman-preempted fraud on the FDA declare.  Slender allegations that exact kinds of antagonistic occasions didn’t fulfill the necessities of the ASR program come up “solely by advantage of the FDCA disclosure necessities.”  531 U.S. at 353.  No “conventional” tort obligation is wherever in sight.  Purported “tort” claims based mostly on the trivialities of the ASR program’s necessities “wouldn’t be counting on conventional state tort legislation which had predated the federal enactments in questions.  Quite the opposite, the existence of those federal enactments is a important factor” – possible the one factor − of such ASR-based claims.  Id. at 353.  Furthermore, the sensible influence of ASR-based claims could be exactly what Buckman rejected:

[ASR-based claims] would additionally trigger candidates to worry that their disclosures to the FDA, though deemed acceptable by the Administration, will later be judged inadequate in state courtroom.  Candidates would then have an incentive to submit a deluge of data that the Administration neither desires nor wants, leading to further burdens on the FDA’s analysis of an utility.

Id. at 351. Certainly, the FDA created the ASR program expressly to handle an data overload drawback of the kind Buckman described.  See 1997 “Abstract Reporting” (program created to “scale back the burden on . . . FDA that outcomes from preparation, receipt, processing and analysis of particular person occasion experiences”).  That the FDA later modified its thoughts doesn’t change the truth that, between 1997 and 2019, producers accredited for becoming a member of that “different” program have been doing exactly what the FDA wished them to do.

Briefly, whatever the classification of the system − PMA or §510(okay), or one thing else − FDA approval of a producer’s determination to choose into the FDA’s ASR program subjected that producer’s product to system particular reporting necessities, as a consequence of an individualized FDA determination to approve the producer’s utility to hitch that program.  We imagine that this may very well be the premise for specific preemption of the kind briefly talked about in Bell.  Conversely, violation claims involving the ASR program are paradigmatic examples of company fraud/personal FDCA enforcement which are impliedly preempted by Buckman.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here