Posted on 03/04/2009 8:34:05 AM PST by steve-b
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a $6.7 million jury award to a musician who lost her arm because of a botched injection of an anti-nausea medication. The court brushed away a plea for limiting lawsuits against drug makers.
In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' claim that federal approval of its Phenergan anti-nausea drug should have shielded the company from lawsuits like the one filed by Diana Levine of Vermont....
The decision is the second this term to reject business groups' arguments that federal regulation effectively pre-empts consumer complaints under state law.
A Vermont jury agreed with Levine's claim that Wyeth failed to provide a strong and clear warning about the risks of quickly injecting the drug into a vein, a method called IV push. Gangrene is likely if the injection accidentally hits an artery — precisely what happened to Levine.
The company appealed and, backed by the Bush administration, argued that once a drug's warning label gets approval from the Food and Drug Administration, the label can't be changed without further FDA approval and consumers cannot pursue state law claims that they were harmed....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Now, if the families of folks slain or persons harmed by early-released or under-sentenced criminals wold have the similar relief, crime would be taken more seriously by our governments.
That said, the blame for what appears to be a bad decision rests with the jury. I haven't read the opinions yet, so I'll have to see what the arguments were for deciding this case.
This ruling will put additional uncertainty in the drug business. The FDA acts like an overlord on the drug business. The SC has firmly established that state trial courts can impose additional requirements beyond the FDA requirements. I reject the majority opinion that drug companies can petition the FDA for a label change. If the FDA had thought that a stronger warning was necessary, it would have demanded it. This ruling will slow down the already laborious process of bringing drugs to the market.
It’s obviously the fault of the person who botched the injection, but the Big Pharma has deeper pockets...
Agree. It’s a wonder drug companies can exist — they are the deep pockets. The PA’s malpractice was likely a policy for 1-2 million.
The pharm company did nothing wrong that I could see. They made a good medicine that you need to inject slowly, and warned you on the label that you should inject it slowly.
It was not injected slowly.
What did the pharma company do wrong and how could it have done things differently?
According to Thomas’s dissent, this is not a victory for federalism. The outcome was correct, in his federalist view, but for the wrong reason, which is why he concurred in the judgement, but not the opinion. He goes into great detail explaining how the majority used yet another phony made up standard to justify pre-emption.
“Now, if the families of folks slain or persons harmed by early-released or under-sentenced criminals wold have the similar relief, crime would be taken more seriously by our governments.”
And who would pay? Oh, that’s right, you and I would.
Crime taken more seriously? You do realize that we have just about the highest — maybe the highest — incarceration rate in the world, don’t you?
Thomas again sides with the court’s leftists against Alito, Roberts and Scalia. The decision, as Alito observes in his devastating dissent, substitutes a tort jury over the FDA regarding the appropriate warning language for a drug.
Contrary to the absurd claim that this is somehow a victory for federalism, this decision undermines the role of the federal government in regulating the interstate trade in drugs and it brings uncertainty and inconsistency to commerce. Greater costs and fewer new drugs will be the result, at a tremendous long term cost in patient lives.
Perhaps Thomas has been reading too many Grisham screeds.
You and I pay every time an award is made. Companies are able to assign their losses as another cost so you pay a part of your purchase price. As to the incarceration rate, does a high rate equate to tough on crime? There are still far to many violent crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.