What are the typical defense strategies used in medical device injury cases?

In California, defendants in medical device injury cases often attempt to shift the blame for an injury onto the plaintiff, by arguing that their injury was the result of some other factor. They may argue that the plaintiff was already at risk of injury, or that the injury was due to misuse or abuse of the device. Another common defense is that the injury was due to an unavoidable medical complication. Defendants might also argue that the medical device was designed and manufactured properly, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of using it. In some cases, they may argue that the manufacturer provided adequate warnings and instructions, and that the plaintiff was negligent in using the device. Finally, the defendant might argue that their medical device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that it was not defective or dangerous. This is particularly common in cases involving medical devices that have received FDA approval, as the defense can use this argument to try to disprove that the product was defective. In summary, the most common defense strategies used in medical device injury cases in California include arguing that the injury was due to a preexisting condition, misuse or abuse of the device, and/or an unavoidable medical complication; that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of using the device; and that the device was approved by the FDA and not defective or dangerous.

Related FAQs

What are the typical defense strategies used in medical device injury cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts