Weston v. Kim’s Dollar Store (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-077-12, 8 pp.) (John W. Kittredge, J.) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court. (G. Thomas Cooper Jr., J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. S.C. S. Ct. Full-text opinion.
Holding: Even though the lenses that plaintiff purchased were non-prescription, cosmetic lenses, they had UV protection. As such, they went through the FDA’s pre-market approval process. Therefore, they are subject to the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, and any state-law claim is preempted to the extent that it would impose requirements on the defendant-manufacturer that are different from or in addition to federal regulations.
We affirm the partial grant of summary judgment to the extent it was granted on claims that would impose common-law requirements “different from, or in addition to” applicable FDA requirements. The manufacturer has conceded that plaintiff’s claim regarding negligence in the manufacture of the contact lenses survived summary judgment; accordingly, to the extent the trial court granted partial summary judgment to the manufacturer in that regard, we vacate the trial court’s order. Remanded for further proceedings.