Opinion
Nos. 01-03-00883-CV, 01-04-00348-CV, 01-04-00349-CV, 01-04-00350-CV, 01-04-00351-CV, 01-04-00352-CV, 01-04-00353-CV, 01-04-00354-CV, 01-04-00355-CV, 01-04-00356-CV, 01-04-00357-CV, 01-04-00358-CV, 01-04-00359-CV, 01-04-00360-CV, 01-04-00361-CV, 01-04-00362-CV, 01-04-00363-CV, 01-04-00364-CV, 01-04-00365-CV, 01-04-00366-CV, 01-04-00367-CV, 01-04-00368-CV, 01-04-00369-CV, 01-04-00370-CV, 01-04-00371-CV, 01-04-00372-CV, 01-04-00373-CV, 01-04-00374-CV, 01-04-00375-CV, 01-04-00376-CV, 01-04-00377-CV, 01-04-00378-CV, 01-04-00379-CV, 01-04-00380-CV, 01-04-00381-CV, 01-04-00382-CV, 01-04-00383-CV, 01-04-00384-CV, 01-04-00385-CV, 01-04-00386-CV, 01-04-00387-CV, 01-04-00388-CV, 01-04-00389-CV, 01-04-00390-CV, 01-04-00391-CV, 01-04-00392-CV, 01-04-00393-CV, 01-04-00394-CV, 01-04-00395-CV, 01-04-00396-CV, 01-04-00397-CV, 01-04-00398-CV, 01-04-00399-CV, 01-04-00400-CV, 01-04-00401-CV, 01-04-00402-CV, 01-04-00403-CV, 01-04-00404-CV
Opinion issued June 30, 2005.
On Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Master Cause No. 2002-27580-B.
On Appeal from the 113th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26969-B.
On Appeal from the 127th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02865-B.
On Appeal from the 125th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02867-B.
On Appeal from the 295th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02981-B.
On Appeal from the 270th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26971-B.
On Appeal from the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26968-B.
On Appeal from the 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26961-B.
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26962-B.
On Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02993-B.
On Appeal from the 61st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26970-B.
On Appeal from the 295th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-42469-B.
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02987-B.
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02992-B.
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02964-B.
On Appeal from the 61st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-42468-B.
On Appeal from the 295th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02994-B.
On Appeal from the 55th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26967-B.
On Appeal from the 129th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02975-B.
On Appeal from the 55th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02871-B.
On Appeal from the 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02961-B.
On Appeal from the 125th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02982-B.
On Appeal from the 280th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02991-B.
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02962-B.
On Appeal from the 127th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02966-B.
On Appeal from the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02870-B.
On Appeal from the 157th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02866-B.
On Appeal from the 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02965-B.
On Appeal from the 280th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02863-B.
On Appeal from the 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02971-B.
On Appeal from the 80th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-03213-B.
On Appeal from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02969-B.
On Appeal from the 127th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02977-B.
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26963-B.
On Appeal from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-026966-B.
On Appeal from the 129th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02872-B.
On Appeal from the 165th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02967-B.
On Appeal from the 270th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02976-B.
On Appeal from the 234th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02985-B.
On Appeal from the 127th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02979-B.
On Appeal from the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02972-B.
On Appeal from the 295th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26965-B.
On Appeal from the 55th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-42470-B.
On Appeal from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02986-B.
On Appeal from the 127th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02978-B.
On Appeal from the 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-46754-B.
On Appeal from the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02869-B.
On Appeal from the 189th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02990-B.
On Appeal from the 129th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02960-B.
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02968-B.
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-55917-B.
On Appeal from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02959-B.
On Appeal from the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02980-B.
On Appeal from the 270th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02963-B.
On Appeal from the 55th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02973-B.
On Appeal from the 234th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-26959-B.
On Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02970-B.
On Appeal from the 190th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02868-B.
On Appeal from the 157th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2002-02652-B.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices TAFT and NUCHIA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiffs in these appeals were implanted with allegedly defective heart valves, which were manufactured by St. Jude Medical, Inc. (St. Jude) and Spire Corporation (Spire). St. Jude and Spire filed motions for summary judgment, in which they contended that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by their compliance with the Food and Drug Administrations's pre-market approval procedures for certain medical devices. The trial court granted the manufacturers' motions for summary judgment and these appeals followed. We affirm.
Factual Background
In 1982, the FDA approved St. Jude's initial PMA application for a mechanical heart valve. During the following years, St. Jude made several improvements to the valve, which were also approved through a series of PMA supplements. One of these improvements was the incorporation of a rotating sewing cuff, which eliminated the need for surgeons to position the valve before sewing it in place.
In an effort to combat endocarditis, a life-threatening infection of the heart muscle, St. Jude notified the FDA that it planned to develop a mechanical heart valve with an infection-resistant, sterile, silver coating on the sewing cuff. St. Jude contracted with Spire to use Spire's patented ion beam assisted deposition process to apply a thin silver coating to St. Jude's heart valves. In May 1997, after an FDA-required animal test was completed, St. Jude submitted a PMA supplement to add the Silzone coating to its already approved heart valve.
Silzone® is the trademark name for the sterile, silver coating that St. Jude added to the sewing cuff of its heart valve.
In March 1998, the FDA approved St. Jude's PMA supplement. As a part of its approval, the FDA imposed several post-approval requirements, including how the valve could be marketed. Specifically, the FDA prohibited St. Jude from making any claims about the efficacy of the Silzone coating in preventing endocarditis. St. Jude began marketing the Silzone valve accordingly.
St. Jude, however, continued to participate in studies to determine the efficacy of the Silzone coating in preventing endocarditis. One of these studies was the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). On January 21, 2000, approximately one month before Baker's death, an independent board reviewing the AVERT data concluded that patients with the Silzone valve were more likely to experience a post-operative complication, known as a paravalvular leak. Approximately 2% of the patients with the Silzone valve experienced such leaks, as opposed to .25% of patients with conventional valves.
The same day it became aware of the conclusions of the AVERT monitoring board, St. Jude began a voluntary recall of all non-implanted Silzone valves, and so informed the FDA. In response, the FDA, in a letter from Edwin Dee to St. Jude, stated, "We agree with your firm's decision to recall [the Silzone valve] . . . We have reviewed your action and conclude that it meets the formal definition of a `Recall'". This is significant, as your action is an alternative to a Food and Drug Administration legal action to remove the defective products from the market." It is undisputed, however, that the FDA never formally withdrew its PMA approval of the valve, and that the valve had FDA approval on the date it was implanted in each of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed these suits against Spire based on theories of liability including, but not limited to, negligence, product liability, and breach of warranty. Spire filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs' state-court tort claims were preempted by the FDA's federal regulation over the valves at issue. The trial court agreed and granted Spire's motion for summary judgment.
Analysis
In Baker v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 01-02-00802-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 30, 2005, no pet. h.), which we issue concurrently with this opinion, this Court considered the same arguments as those in these appeals. Specifically, the Court addressed the issue of whether the plaintiffs' claims in that case were preempted by St. Jude's compliance with applicable FDA pre-market approval procedures. On a record that is nearly identical to that before us in these appeals, this Court concluded that the plaintiffs' negligence, products liability, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and malice claims were, in fact, preempted by St. Jude's compliance with the FDA's pre-market approval process for the manufacture and distribution of the heart valve that was implanted in the deceased. See Baker, slip op. at 18, 21. Accordingly, we affirmed the summary judgment granted in favor of St. Jude. Id. at 21.
This Court's opinion in Baker v. St. Jude extensively discusses the Court's reasoning behind its conclusion that the doctrine of preemption applies. Neither the briefing nor the record in these appeals shows a reason to distinguish the present cases from Baker.
Accordingly, for the reasons given in Baker v. St. Jude, we overrule plaintiffs' sole issue on appeal. Because we have held that all of plaintiffs' claims against Spire are preempted by federal law, we affirm the judgments.