MDR Classification Rule 10

Chr1sG

Starting to get Involved
#1
This may sound as though I am being pedantic, but if I was a lawyer, and the wording of Rule 10 were used in a legal contract, I believe the first clause could have (at least) two possible interpretations.

"Active devices intended for diagnosis and monitoring are classified as class IIa
— if they are intended to supply energy which will be absorbed by the human body ...
"

What does this mean for a device where energy absorption is not intended (or necessary for operation)?

I see a distinction between
'they are intended to supply energy-which-will be-absorbed'
and
'they are intended to supply energy, which (as an unfortunate side-effect) will be absorbed (whether this is intended or not)'

From a physics point of view, let's assume that energy supplied to the body can be either reflected, transmitted or absorbed.
Of course, for something like an x-ray machine, the both absorption and transmission are absolutely necessary for its function, but there can be devices where the amount of absorbed energy is of no concern (for the device).

Hypothetical example:
The patient stands in front of a light source and the shadow cast by the patient on a large sheet of paper is used to make an estimate of their volume (and this info is used for some diagnostic/therapeutic purpose). The functioning of this device only requires that the light supplied by the source is not transmitted through the patient (it can be reflected or absorbed, who cares).
The amount of energy that will be absorbed will no doubt depend on the wavelength of the light, but absorption is not required (or 'intended').

Similarly, there are other examples I can think of where reflected energy is necessary for the device operation, and absorption/transmission is of no concern.

Or at the most ridiculous level, if a device is providing info via an illuminated display of some sort, then it is supplying energy, and a fraction of this energy will be absorbed (by the cells in the retina in order for the information on the display to be perceived!)
Does that automatically make such a device Class IIa?

Any thoughts?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Chr1sG

Starting to get Involved
#3
So, does that mean that any energy emitting device is Class IIa (*) irrespective of whether energy absorption plays no part in the intended use?

(* except if it only emits visible light for illumination of the body)

So my example of a device with a display that emits light (not for illuminating the body, but for presenting clinical data) is Class IIa?
Surely not?

As I say, I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that this interpretation is possible, in which case, lots of Class I device manufacturers are screwed ;-)
 
Last edited:

Chr1sG

Starting to get Involved
#6
I suppose it frustrates me that the most important piece of legislation for the industry in the EU has been written in a way that is so wide open to interpretation. Why didn't they get a pedantic lawyer to point out these things?

Google 'BBC the-commas-that-cost-companies-millions' and you'll see what I mean ;-)
 

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#7
I suppose it frustrates me that the most important piece of legislation for the industry in the EU has been written in a way that is so wide open to interpretation. Why didn't they get a pedantic lawyer to point out these things?
All law is open to interpretation. That is what the courts are for. Lawyers represent parties who would like it interpreted to their benefit, or at least not to their loss. I call confusing language in a law or contract "lawyer bait." I don't think lawyers have much motivation to stomp out confusing wording in the law. They obsess over legal contracts that they themselves draw up for clients, because they want their interpretation to be clear enough that their own interpretation, intended to serve the interests of their client, will win if challenged. Even so, the bullet-proof contract does not exist.

I concur with dgrainger. Device class is determined by risk, not by legal definitions. If the risk is the same regardless of intent, how you interpret this wording is irrelevant to classification.
 

Chr1sG

Starting to get Involved
#8
Thanks @Watchcat

I concur with dgrainger.
Are you concurring with dgrainger that the 2nd interpretation is what was meant by the authors
or
are you concurring that the energy 'absorbed by the human body' relates solely to the patient
or
both of these?

If the risk is the same regardless of intent, how you interpret this wording is irrelevant to classification.
So, assuming that the intent of this rule is to classify devices as IIa (or higher) based on the fact that energy will be absorbed by the (patient's) human body (irrespective of whether it is intended or not), then what level of energy absorption is allowable (sufficiently low risk) that a device can remain in Class I?
Given the large gap in cost/resource impact between Class I and Class IIa, it would seem to me that this is quite an important question to answer...

Device class is determined by risk, not by legal definitions.
Hmmm...that's quite a bold statement. Do you think that argument would satisfy a competent authority who came knocking and asked why a company didn't get a notified body involved?
 

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#9
Has any CA ever come knocking at the door of a medical device company? Not trying to suggest that this has never happened, but I would be curious to know. My limited experience with the EU MDD gave me the impression that the CAs mostly handed the entire thing off to the NBs and then went back to whatever they were doing before they were so rudely interrupted by medical devices. Seriously, is anyone aware of this having happened, except maybe post-disaster, as in the mess with the PIP implants?

But to answer your question...

I would never begin to predict what would satisfy any regulatory authority that comes knocking at your door, assuming you have been gamely trying to satisfy them all along, rather than hide out and hope they don't notice. I wouldn't bet money that the authority understands anything any better than you do. Nor that they haven't been blown there by political winds that will toss everything out the window and they will do whatever satisfies the politics, regardless of legal definitions or requirements.

I will say that I don't have any more confidence that you will satisfy them by standing on a legal definition than a risk-based framework. the legal definitions come into play later, if the authority is not satisfied. To quote a colleague who started in Legal and transferred to RA, "Legal steps in when RA fails." So I guess the way I see it is that, if you are RA, and you are pointing to legal definitions, to some extent you have already failed, whether an authority shows up or not.
 

dgrainger

Trusted Information Resource
#10
Has any CA ever come knocking at the door of a medical device company?
It does depend on the CA. Certainly the MHRA used to run class I device manufacturer audits and regularly participated in the global Operation Pangea - mainly counterfeits UK medicines regulation: responding to current challenges

On the whole, regulation in the UK is by persuasion as the enforcement options under the MDD are rather blunt - the safeguard clause.

This will change in the GB with a range of actions being introduced including civil action as well as a range of criminal options.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N Medical Device Classification under MDR - Rule 21 EU Medical Device Regulations 12
M Informational EU MDR Classification Rule 11 – what??? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 9
J MDR Annex VIII, Rule 6 Classification - Implication for lower risk CV products? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
G EU MDR 2017/745 Rule 11 interpretation - Re-classification of a Software as Medical Device Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
C Substance based Medical Device Classification under MDR - Rule 21 EU Medical Device Regulations 10
D MDR classification and DoC requirements Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
M Classification of Instruments under EU MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
C MDR software classification EU Medical Device Regulations 12
K Question on MDR classification EU Medical Device Regulations 5
S Classification of a product according to MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 3
L Classification under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
K Biological indicator system classification under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 2
D MDR 2017/745 Classification Guide EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M Informational EU – Guidance on Qualification and Classification of Software in Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – MDR and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 – IVDR Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
dgrainger Informational MDCG 2019-11: Guidance on Qualification and Classification of Software in Regulation (EU) 2017/745 – MDR and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 – IVDR Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
E Wristwatch Skin-proximal glucose sensor - Classification under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Informational TGA – Several proposed changes to classification to better align with the EU MDR Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
K Subcontractors Providing Services Under MDD or MDR need ISO 13485 from EU Notified Body? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
D MDR: Active medical device or not? Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 4
T Justification of use of non-harmonized standards for MDR conformity Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
F The meaning of MDR Article 61 6(b) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
S Repackaging and translation under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 14
Ed Panek MDR Delays Poll EU Medical Device Regulations 0
S Meaning of Article 61 (10) of the MDR 2017/745 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
T MDR PMS System Vs. Plan Vs. Procedures EU Medical Device Regulations 3
N Shelf life guidance EU MDR, class 1 and class 2 Medical Devices EU Medical Device Regulations 2
G UKCA and EU MDR marking UK Medical Device Regulations 5
G Updating MDD devices after MDR transitional period EU Medical Device Regulations 0
J Changes to OS - Significant change under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 8
D Direct-Marking Requirements under MDR 2017/745 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
G Significant changes on MDD devices/Old Devices after MDR transitional period EU Medical Device Regulations 1
P MDR conformity EU Medical Device Regulations 1
P MDR documentation submissions EU Medical Device Regulations 4
P Essential MDR documents IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 0
M How to build a winning strategy for EU MDR Compliance Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 0
I MDR: animal origin and nano materials EU Medical Device Regulations 3
C Deadline for compliance with added MDR harmonized standards CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
D Is sampling allowed for MDR Class III products? EU Medical Device Regulations 0
A MDR Article 16 Certification of Distributors by a Notified Body? EU Medical Device Regulations 8
C MDR - Annex II _3. DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING INFORMATION_a EU Medical Device Regulations 3
F MDR GSPR 23.4 (c) EU Medical Device Regulations 6
B What are "appropriate drawings" required for a MDR in 21CFR820? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
Ed Panek MDR Harmonized Standards Updated EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M MDR transfer for legacy devices EU Medical Device Regulations 1
Ed Panek Auditor Comment about MDR vs MDD EU Medical Device Regulations 10
N The new MDR requirements - SPR section #10.4 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
T Choosing a Notified Body for MDR - SGS/BSI/DNV/DQS-MED Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
M Reworking MDD product w MDR labeling CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
A MDR and Poland EU Medical Device Regulations 6
Ed Panek Invitation to the MDR Dance EU Medical Device Regulations 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom