SCOTUS: Family Can't Sue for Side Effects in Vaccinated Baby

[mhatrw]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/24/Supreme_Court_Orders.htm

Wyeth cannot be sued by a Pittsburgh couple whose daughter developed a seizure disorder after being vaccinated for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, 6-2. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the court's 19-page majority opinion, which found that the lawsuit was barred by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986.

Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz's daughter Hannah was vaccinated against the three diseases in 1992 when she was 6 months old. Within 24 hours of the vaccination, she began to experience seizures and had over 100 episodes during the next month. Hannah was diagnosed with having residual seizure disorder and developmental delay, and she still has both conditions. ...

Scalia wrote that the act plainly protects drugmakers from lawsuits "expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine's unavoidable, adverse side effects. Provided that there was proper manufacture and warning, any remaining side effects, including those resulting from design defects, are deemed to have been unavoidable. State-law design-defect claims are therefore preempted." ...

Scalia wrote that the act does not specifically mention "defective design," but that it is protected as well. "Products-liability law establishes a classic and well known triumvirate of grounds for liability: defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design. If all three were intended to be preserved, it would be strange to mention specifically only two, and leave the third to implication. It would have been much easier (and much more natural) to provide that manufacturers would be liable for 'defective manufacture, defective directions or warning, and defective design.' It seems that the statute fails to mention design-defect liability 'by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.'"

[polichick]

1. SCOTUS has been corrupted by fucking corporate whores...

...just like the rest of the government.

[FBaggins]

2. It wasn't that close a decision... only two dissents. n/t

[polichick]

3. imo the corporate pull is across the board, not just on the other side...

...just as it is in Congress and the WH.

[mhatrw]

13. from the SCOTUS's 2 most liberal members

as well as a separate opinion from the court's third most liberal member

[Poll_Blind]

4. It's the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986" that needs scrutiny, not the...

...Court in this case. This isn't my usual schtick, because corruption on the highest court in the land is pretty rampant. But, at least from what I've read so far, this seems to be a case of judges attempting to interpret the law and finding what I presume is very clear wording in the act mentioned.

Scalia's assumption about the "defective design" portion of the act, however, I find repugnant along with any justices who bought into similar lines of thinking.

PB

[mhatrw]

11. Maybe you should read the dissent of the SCOTUS's 2 most liberal members. n/t

[DrDan]

5. our transition to fascism is progressing nicely . . . .

[trotsky]

6. This will of course result in much screaming and wailing among the anti-vaxers...

who can't be bothered to actually read and understand what's going on.

[mhatrw]

10. Anti-vaxers like the 2 most liberal members of the SCOTUS. Right? n/t

Corporate protection over consumer rights FTW.

[trotsky]

14. Please note, they don't hold the position you think they do. n/t

[mhatrw]

15. Please note that I side with their position. Not Scalia's.

"Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act),42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, mis-construes the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products."

Now, please explain to us all why this dissenting decision does not mean what it says.

Then explain to us why you side with Scalia over Sotomayor.

[trotsky]

17. Why do you side with all the right-wing politicians you've quoted...

and the right-wing sources you've used?

[mhatrw]

18. LOL. Nice side step.

Please answer the questions.

[trotsky]

20. No, you've already shown that you have absolutely no problem...

agreeing with a right winger. So why are you attacking others for something you are A-OK with?

[mhatrw]

21. I'm asking for an explanation.

I agree with 100% with Sotomayor and Ginsburg on this decision.

You appear to agree with Scalia. Why?

[trotsky]

22. You appear to disagree with Clinton-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer.

Why?

[mhatrw]

23. Because injuries caused by vaccines whose side effects were clearly

avoidable are not protected by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, despite Scalia's typically pro-corporate argument to the contrary and Breyer's tortured justification of Scalia's argument (based on his personal divination of Congress' intent and desires of the HHS).

[trotsky]

24. "Clearly avoidable"? You know this for a fact?

Wow. You are truly amazing.

[mhatrw]

25. LOL. I don't know this for a fact. That's what courts are for.

Unfortunately for US consumers and fortunately for Big Pharma lobbyists and shareholders, the SCOTUS has ruled that tort courts cannot make any determination on whether vaccine injuries were avoidable or unavoidable.

Maybe you'd like to read http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf">the decision and the dissent?

[trotsky]

26. Oh I think you've already made up your mind.

My heart goes out to this family, but they had their day in court. And the standards in the vaccine court are much, much lower than normal court. You may continue to bluster and show how little you understand about this case and the circumstances, please go right ahead. I do enjoy the shows you put on.

[mhatrw]

27. LOL. All you have is personal attacks and Scalia's typically pro-corporate argument.

Sotomayor put it best:

"Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act),42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, mis-construes the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products."

[trotsky]

28. And yet you can't dispute it.

No matter how many LOLs you throw in!

[Confusious]

29. LOL she also said there was a question

about whether vaccines caused autism, which has been proven to be false.

LOL try again.

LOL

[Marblehead]

7. now they can really

start experimenting

[madrchsod]

8. the act left a big loop hole....

even the two who voted against the decision admitted to that

[varkam]

9. Well, it's not that they can't sue. They're prevented from taking two bites at the apple.

The NVICP was established to hear claims of injury by vaccines, and the intention of Congress in setting that system up was to essentially set limits on the tort litigation that could proceed -- being that the intention of Congress was to prevent the exact sort of thing that the Bruesewitz's were trying to do, the decision isn't much of a surprise.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

16. Some perspective.

The Supreme Court rules on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and vaccine injury cases
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/the_supreme_court_rules_on_bruesewitz_v.php

Supreme Court Decision on Vaccine Injury
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2896

Supreme Court Saves Nation’s Immunization Program
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11127

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.