A 65-year-old Spring Valley man was critically injured in a rollover crash after he lost control of his 2002 Ford Explorer Sport on eastbound State Route 94 near Bancroft Drive, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.

The Explorer rolled over several times when the driver swerved to avoid a large box on the freeway. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Brian Pennings said the driver, who was not identified, suffered severe head trauma and facial injuries in the rollover auto accident. The box had just fallen off a furniture truck and its driver had pulled over to the side of the freeway before attempting to get the box back.

The Ford Explorer Sport is one of the most unstable and rollover prone SUVs on our highways, especially when taking evasive action at higher speeds. Independent studies have repeatedly shown the roof strength of this sport utility vehicle is one of the worst; it collapses in on front seat occupants during rollover accidents. An Explorer’s occupants in a rollover accident typically suffer severe head, neck and spinal injuries. The roof crushes in a greater distance under the same force compared to better designed SUVs.
More

In the case of Riegel v. Medtronic Feb. 20, the Supreme Court delivered an 8-1 decision stating that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDA) prevents the filing of any future state liability suit against a medical device manufacturer. According to an editorial in The Los Angeles Times, this means any consumer injured or harmed by a “medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA” such as a stent, defibrillator, artificial knee and many others cannot file a personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturer.

This is a huge decision for the current administration and the medical device industry. By barring any pre-emptive litigation this ruling pushes forward the administration’s agenda of securing pre-emption for federal agencies. Manufacturers and insurance companies are obviously pleased knowing they will have to defend fewer product liability cases.
In 1999, Charles and Donna Riegel had sued Medtronic in New York alleging the firm’s Evergreen balloon catheter used on Mr.Riegel during a coronary angioplasty procedure, was defective in design and the manufacturing, and labeling were negligent. The catheter had burst while being inserted on Mr.Riegel. This case challenged the Supreme Court to finally interpret whether the FDA’s reach as the foremost medical device regulatory agency as mandated by the Medical Device Amendments meant that injured patients could not sue for damages in state courts.
A regulatory report republished in the Medical Design Technology Web site reveals some of the Supreme Court majority’s reasoning for their decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion states “The solicitude for those injured by FDA-approved devices . . . was overcome in Congress’s estimation by solicitude for those who would suffer without new medical devices if juries were allowed to apply the tort law of 50 States to all innovations,” Or they believe it was Congress’ intention in 1976 to pre-empt state lawsuits by passing the Medical Device Amendments.
More