Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Product Liability Suit Pre-empted by Federal Vaccine Act
A Philadelphia judge recently ruled that a federal law governing the liability of pharmaceutical companies for drug vaccines pre-empts state tort claims of design defect and failure to warn in the product liability case of an 11-year-old boy who has autism.
In an apparent case of first impression, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New wrote an Aug. 27 opinion, required under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925, to affirm his decision to grant summary judgment in favor of pharmaceutical defendants Aventis Pasteur Inc., Merck & Co. Inc. and Wyeth in Wright v. Aventis Pasteur.
The Ruling
New said both the plaintiffs' design defect and failure-to-warn claims were expressly pre-empted by the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. New also found that the failure-to-warn claim failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact that can overcome the protection the Vaccine Act provides to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
New said in his opinion that it appears no Pennsylvania state court has addressed whether ' 22(b) of the Vaccine Act expressly pre-empts claims of design defects against vaccine manufacturers, or whether each case has to be examined individually to determine “whether a vaccine is unavoidably safe before they gain the protection of Section 22(b).”
The Vaccine Act
The 1986 Vaccine Act was created to provide recovery of damages to injured vaccine recipients without the requirement that the recipients prove the manufacturer was negligent and that a vaccine was defective, New said, noting that it was also aimed at preventing the undermining of national vaccine supply by expensive litigation. The judge noted that other courts' decisions have been similar. The only contrary opinion was a 2007 Georgia state court ruling in Ferrari v. American Home Products Corp., New said.
In Wright, Jared Wright, 11, of Texas, was administered five vaccines in the first year-and-a-half of his life that contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative once used in vaccines to deter bacterial growth, as well as one other vaccine, New wrote. Jared's parents, Howard and Jacqueline Wright, claimed that the mercury in those six vaccines manufactured by the pharmaceutical defendants caused Jared's autism.
The plaintiffs said the Vaccine Act did not automatically pre-empt the design defect claim because the vaccine defendants have the burden of proof to show on a case-by-case basis that the use of thimerosal is “'unavoidably safe,'” New said. Courts can interpret the Vaccine Act two ways, the plaintiffs argued, and should only interpret the Vaccine Act to pre-empt design defect claims “only if first the side effects are determined to be unavoidable on a case-by-case basis,” New said.
New said Congress intended the Vaccine Act to pre-empt all state design defect claims without a case-by-case assessment if the vaccines' side effects were unavoidable because Congress did not want instability in the vaccine market to be caused by numerous torts over vaccine injuries. That is why Congress set up its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the judge said.
If the plaintiffs' argument is given credence, New said, then the protection provided by the Vaccine Act will no longer extend to vaccine manufacturers and, in turn, to the stability of the supply of child vaccines. Manufacturers can obtain a presumption of proper warning under the Vaccine Act by providing evidence showing compliance with federal Food and Drug Administration vaccine regulations, New said. Plaintiffs can only overcome this presumption, New said, by showing the vaccine manufacturer engaged in fraud or wrongful withholding of information from the FDA regarding the vaccine prior to approval; wrongfully withheld information related to the vaccines' safety after its approval; or failed to exercise due care even though the manufacturer complied with federal laws and regulations.
Every major public health organization ' as well as the Food and Drug Administration ' that has examined the alleged link between the use of thimerosal in vaccines and neurological injury has not found a causal link, New said.
Amaris Elliott-Engel is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter.
A Philadelphia judge recently ruled that a federal law governing the liability of pharmaceutical companies for drug vaccines pre-empts state tort claims of design defect and failure to warn in the product liability case of an 11-year-old boy who has autism.
In an apparent case of first impression, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New wrote an Aug. 27 opinion, required under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925, to affirm his decision to grant summary judgment in favor of pharmaceutical defendants Aventis Pasteur Inc.,
The Ruling
New said both the plaintiffs' design defect and failure-to-warn claims were expressly pre-empted by the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. New also found that the failure-to-warn claim failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact that can overcome the protection the Vaccine Act provides to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
New said in his opinion that it appears no Pennsylvania state court has addressed whether ' 22(b) of the Vaccine Act expressly pre-empts claims of design defects against vaccine manufacturers, or whether each case has to be examined individually to determine “whether a vaccine is unavoidably safe before they gain the protection of Section 22(b).”
The Vaccine Act
The 1986 Vaccine Act was created to provide recovery of damages to injured vaccine recipients without the requirement that the recipients prove the manufacturer was negligent and that a vaccine was defective, New said, noting that it was also aimed at preventing the undermining of national vaccine supply by expensive litigation. The judge noted that other courts' decisions have been similar. The only contrary opinion was a 2007 Georgia state court ruling in Ferrari v. American Home Products Corp., New said.
In Wright, Jared Wright, 11, of Texas, was administered five vaccines in the first year-and-a-half of his life that contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative once used in vaccines to deter bacterial growth, as well as one other vaccine, New wrote. Jared's parents, Howard and Jacqueline Wright, claimed that the mercury in those six vaccines manufactured by the pharmaceutical defendants caused Jared's autism.
The plaintiffs said the Vaccine Act did not automatically pre-empt the design defect claim because the vaccine defendants have the burden of proof to show on a case-by-case basis that the use of thimerosal is “'unavoidably safe,'” New said. Courts can interpret the Vaccine Act two ways, the plaintiffs argued, and should only interpret the Vaccine Act to pre-empt design defect claims “only if first the side effects are determined to be unavoidable on a case-by-case basis,” New said.
New said Congress intended the Vaccine Act to pre-empt all state design defect claims without a case-by-case assessment if the vaccines' side effects were unavoidable because Congress did not want instability in the vaccine market to be caused by numerous torts over vaccine injuries. That is why Congress set up its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the judge said.
If the plaintiffs' argument is given credence, New said, then the protection provided by the Vaccine Act will no longer extend to vaccine manufacturers and, in turn, to the stability of the supply of child vaccines. Manufacturers can obtain a presumption of proper warning under the Vaccine Act by providing evidence showing compliance with federal Food and Drug Administration vaccine regulations, New said. Plaintiffs can only overcome this presumption, New said, by showing the vaccine manufacturer engaged in fraud or wrongful withholding of information from the FDA regarding the vaccine prior to approval; wrongfully withheld information related to the vaccines' safety after its approval; or failed to exercise due care even though the manufacturer complied with federal laws and regulations.
Every major public health organization ' as well as the Food and Drug Administration ' that has examined the alleged link between the use of thimerosal in vaccines and neurological injury has not found a causal link, New said.
Amaris Elliott-Engel is a reporter for The Legal Intelligencer, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.