The Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed that the CPLA creates a cause of action, rooted in traditional Connecticut tort law, against medical device manufacturers that fail to provide adequate warnings to the relevant regulators best positioned to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (Glover II ), 343 Conn. 513, 537-38, 275 A.3d 168 (2022). Accordingly, in view of the principles laid out in our previous decision, we conclude that the Glovers’ CPLA claims are not preempted by the FDCA, and VACATE the district court's dismissal of the CPLA claims.
This is of no moment, since the California district court's decision dealt with a different state's statutes and, in any event, has no binding effect on this Court. See Glover v. Bausch &Lomb Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 240 (2d Cir. 2021), certified question answered, 343 Conn. 513 (2022). [*] The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above.
Glover v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 236 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456, 781 F.3d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)), certified question answered, 275 A.3d 168 (Conn. 2022). III. DISCUSSION
In response, the Connecticut Supreme Court explained that its state law did indeed recognize a duty to report adverse events to regulators. See Glover v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 343 Conn. 513, 557 (2022).