skip to main content
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Capabilities
People
main menu
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Capabilities
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • People
About
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
Resources
Insights
News
Events
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Contact
Offices
Advisory
May 12, 2020

New York Federal Court Dismisses Breast Implant Products Liability Claim on Preemption Grounds

Authors and Contacts

Judi Abbott Curry

Facebook
(Twitter)
LinkedIn
Email
Copy Page Link

MemoryGel silicone breast implants are Class III medical devices, approved by the FDA through the premarket approval (PMA) process in 2006. Premarket approval was a federal requirement imposed on the device. Plaintiff sued in product liability (negligence based on failure to warn and manufacturing defect, negligence per se, strict liability in design and manufacturing defect, breach of express and implied warranty) and asserted claims of “Breast Implant Illness” related to the implants’ safety and effectiveness. Webb v. Mentor, 5:19 CV 1604 (N.D.N.Y. April 7, 2020). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C. § 301 et sq., pursuant to the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c and, alternatively, that plaintiff failed to state any claims upon which relief, under FRCP 12(b)(6).

To succeed in asserting a claim that fits through the narrow gap between express and implied preemption, plaintiff must identify a parallel federal law upon which she has based her state law claims. Plaintiff alleged that defendants did not comply with the FDA‘s Quality System Regulations and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs). However plaintif failed to identify specific regulations or explain how defendants violated the CGMPs. Plaintiff’s general allegations could not withstand preemption because they failed to establish the necessary link between defendants’ federal violations and her alleged causes of action. Plaintiff’s failure to warn and design defect claims were preempted because they sought to impose safety related requirements on the device, or labeling requirements beyond those imposed by the FDA. Plaintiff’s express and implied warranty claims were preempted; plaintiff did not identify specific representations of the manufacture which exceeded the scope of FDA approved labeling statements nor did she show defendants’ alleged federal violations caused the implants to have deviated from their purpose, that they failed, or that they were unfit for patients. As a matter of law, the MDA preempted plaintiff’s claims.

Harris Beach has offices throughout New York State, including Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, Long Island, New York City, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse and White Plains, as well as New Haven, Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey.

Authors and Contacts

Partner Judi Abbott Curry

Judi Abbott Curry

Of Counsel

Related Legal Practices

Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
Facebook
(Twitter)
LinkedIn
Email
Copy Page Link

Contact Us

Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
Payment Portal
X-twitter Facebook Linkedin Instagram

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2025 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC

TRUSTe
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Back to Top

Insights

New York Federal Court Dismisses Breast Implant Products Liability Claim on Preemption Grounds

Capabilities
People
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Advisory
May 12, 2020

New York Federal Court Dismisses Breast Implant Products Liability Claim on Preemption Grounds

Insight

MemoryGel silicone breast implants are Class III medical devices, approved by the FDA through the premarket approval (PMA) process in 2006. Premarket approval was a federal requirement imposed on the device. Plaintiff sued in product liability (negligence based on failure to warn and manufacturing defect, negligence per se, strict liability in design and manufacturing defect, breach of express and implied warranty) and asserted claims of “Breast Implant Illness” related to the implants’ safety and effectiveness. Webb v. Mentor, 5:19 CV 1604 (N.D.N.Y. April 7, 2020). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C. § 301 et sq., pursuant to the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c and, alternatively, that plaintiff failed to state any claims upon which relief, under FRCP 12(b)(6).

To succeed in asserting a claim that fits through the narrow gap between express and implied preemption, plaintiff must identify a parallel federal law upon which she has based her state law claims. Plaintiff alleged that defendants did not comply with the FDA‘s Quality System Regulations and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs). However plaintif failed to identify specific regulations or explain how defendants violated the CGMPs. Plaintiff’s general allegations could not withstand preemption because they failed to establish the necessary link between defendants’ federal violations and her alleged causes of action. Plaintiff’s failure to warn and design defect claims were preempted because they sought to impose safety related requirements on the device, or labeling requirements beyond those imposed by the FDA. Plaintiff’s express and implied warranty claims were preempted; plaintiff did not identify specific representations of the manufacture which exceeded the scope of FDA approved labeling statements nor did she show defendants’ alleged federal violations caused the implants to have deviated from their purpose, that they failed, or that they were unfit for patients. As a matter of law, the MDA preempted plaintiff’s claims.

Harris Beach has offices throughout New York State, including Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, Long Island, New York City, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse and White Plains, as well as New Haven, Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey.

Authors

Judi Abbott Curry

Of Counsel
(212) 313-5404
jcurry@harrisbeachmurtha.com
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2026 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC
Content current as of September 5, 2026 5:09 am