Supreme Court deals Pharmaceutical Compainies a big blow

[cali]

No Legal Shield in Drug Labeling, Justices Rule
ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 4, 2009

WASHINGTON — In a major setback for business groups that had hoped to build a barrier against injury lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators.

The ruling could have significant implications beyond drug manufacturing. Many companies have sought tighter federal regulation in recent years in part to shield themselves from litigation.

The court, by a 6-to-3 vote, upheld a jury verdict of $6.7 million in favor of a musician from Vermont whose arm had to be amputated after she was injected with an antinausea drug. The drug’s manufacturer, Wyeth, had argued that its compliance with the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements should immunize it from lawsuits.

Pharmaceutical companies were especially disappointed by Wednesday’s decision.

Ronald Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said, “We believe state courts should not be second-guessing the doctors and scientists at the F.D.A.”

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/washington/05scotus.html?ref=policy

[Christa]

1. About time.

They got away with murder for far too long.

[cali]

2. this decision goes far beyond just the pharmaceutical industry and

has broad repercussions for all product liability cases. Any yay for Diana.

[Oilwellian]

3. Score one for the little guy

What a rare moment.

[cali]

7. It's actually way, way bigger than that

the pre-emption crap was a big corporate fascist power grab. And it's been struck right in the heart. God bless Justice Stevens.

[drm604]

4. 6 to 3?

The vote count struck me so I checked the article to see how they voted.

Justice Stevens was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but did not adopt Justice Stevens’s reasoning, saying instead that he objected generally to “far-reaching implied pre-emption doctrines” that “wander far from the statutory text.”

Thomas? That's surprising.

[Gman]

5. If it protected Big Pharma

I would have expected Thomas to be fine with “far-reaching implied pre-emption doctrines” that “wander far from the statutory text.”

How old is Thomas? Is he getting senile or something?

[cali]

6. It's his states' rights shtick

he's a true believer and a one note Clarence.

[Brewman_Jax]

8. Good to hear!

they've been too well-protected for way too long! :thumbsup:

[Solly Mack]

9. K&R

That's excellent news. The court helps the people protect their rights and their person against the illegal, the unethical, and the corrupt. We must always have the right to redress.

[cali]

10. It's a shocker. Most legal experts expect ed it to go the other way

It's a strong refutation of Cippalone which allowed cigarette makers to hide behind the SG warning- the doctrine of pre-emption.

[cali]

11. kick