products are more likely to be found in the field of prescription drug products”). Though that may be the case, comment k certainly does not foreclose the possibility of extending its reach to medical devices. See Clark v. Danek Med., Inc., 1999 WL 613316, *4 (WD.Ky. Mar. 29, 1999) (stating that a spinal fixation device implant “is the sort of desirable but unavoidably unsafe product described by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, comment k”); Plenger v. Alza Carp., 11 Cal.App.4th 349, 357-58, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 811 (Cal.Ct.App.1992) (applying comment k to a prescription implanted medical device, reasoning that it was more analogous to a pharmaceutical than other medical devices, such as a wheelchair); Breen v. Synthes-Stratec, Inc., 108 Conn. App. 105, 947 A.2d 383, 388 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Rather, comment k operates when the product
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that prescription is stricti juris holding that comment k is not limited to prescription drugs but also is applicable to medical devices such as the plates implanted in the plaintiffs body holding that the penalty is applicable holding that a medical opinion is adequate where it is based upon the veterans medical history examinations and the also describes the disability in sufficient detail