Supreme Court rejects limits on drug lawsuits.

[elleng]

Source: WaPo

"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."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030401407.html?hpid=topnews

[katandmoon]

1. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[elleng]

2. "The decision is the second this term

to reject business groups' arguments that federal regulation effectively pre-empts consumer complaints under state law."

[happyslug]

3. Copy of the Opinion, Alito, Robert and Scalia dissented

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1249.pdf

[SoCalNative]

4. Well of course they did

eom

[elleng]

5. Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion!

.

[happyslug]

9. In fact Thomas's opinion is to the left of the Majority decision

Thomas basically said, unless Federal law EXPRESSLY SAYS SO, preemption by federal law or regulatory action should NOT be the rule. The majority said preemption can be assumed IF the language or practice exists clearly shows preemption was the intent of Congress or the regulatory agency. The dissent said, preemption can be assumed where the federal agency during the regulation is clearly made up of experts in the field being regulated (In this case the FDA in regards to Drugs and warning labels on those drugs).

The Court found no such preemption and thus upheld the state action.

[No Elephants]

18. I see it as Thomas being to the right of the minority, not to the left. Thomas'

opinion could lead to abolition of the entire judicial doctrine of federal pre-emption via "occupying the field." I see it as a states's rights decision and a strict contruction (of statute) decision, only slightly to the left of the Supreme Court that repeatedly knocked down New Deal legislation until FDR threatened to make the SCOTUS bench larger and "pack" it with his own appointees.

This is not necessarily to say that Scalia was wrong. The Supremacy Clause was good enough for the Founders and it's probably good enough for me. If Congress truly wants to pre-empt state law, maybe we should put Congress through the minor trouble of saying so right in the statute, instead of leaving it to judges to decide. I'm not sure. I have not thought it through yet. But, I see this as a really old school, conservative decision. States rights uber individual rights. Barry would be proud. (Goldwater, that is.)

[No Elephants]

17. HISTORIC. One of few times Thomas was not in lockstep with Scalia.

[dipsydoodle]

6. That is so tragic

for any musician. Now that your Supreme Court has upheld the decision is that it with no further avenues left for Wyeth ?

[elleng]

7. Left for Wyeth to do WHAT?

This particular case is closed, and they have to pay Ms. Levine whatever the jury said. In the future, Wyeth can change the labels on the meds to better disclose the hazards.

[dipsydoodle]

8. That's what I meant -

Is the case now closed so's they've got to pay. I don't fully understand your legal system and hence the question.

[elleng]

10. Yes, they've got to pay her!

.

[merh]

12. Wyeth, the pharmecutical company, has no other avenue before them.

They must pay the musician the jury award of $6.7 million plus interest.

[mvd]

11. Hooray!!

Not surprising that 2 out of the 3 dissenters are Bush appointees. His appointees couldn't be more pro-business. And what a joke that the FDA should be the decider - NOW who is legislating from the bench? Of course, the right wing justices.

[crimsonblue]

13. ok, so how is the drug company responsible for the woman losing her arm?

Just thought I'd ask that. Was it a tainted drug, or was it an inexperienced, unqualified individual performing a procedure in which he did not understand the potential side effects and complications?

[WriteDown]

14. Be careful....

Your bordering on logic there.

[guruoo]

15. I'm trying to figure out how it can be both Wyatt and the doctor's fault.

How can the doctor be held liable if Wyatt failed to provide them with warning
of the danger of this particular use of the drug?

"A Vermont jury decided that Wyeth failed to provide a strong and clear
warning about the risks of quickly injecting the drug into an artery,
a method called IV push, which is what caused Levine's injury. She also
successfully sued the medical professionals who were treating her for a migraine. "

[crimsonblue]

16. Doctors should have an understanding of possible side effects beyond black box warnings

The hospital ran into liability issues when they allowed a physician's assistant to inject the drug without being aware of the possible side effects. IMO, only registered nurses and doctors should be legally allowed to inject people.