We’re happy to report on a couple of favorable decisions involving some of the COVID-19-related issues that the Blog has been covering. We have one each on ivermectin injunctions, Shoemaker v. UPMC, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 4372772 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2022), and vaccine mandates, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2022 WL 4377515 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022).
We listen to the This American Life show on National Public Radio most weeks, and it often reveals interesting things about, uh, this American life. On Saturday, as we drove around the Main Line doing chores, we listened to a This American Life program that illustrated the Tolstoyan ditty about how unhappy families are each
Bexis recently returned from speaking at the 2022 National Vaccine Law Conference. As a veteran of both the DTP and thimerosal vaccine litigations, he was generally interested in vaccine-related product liability issues, so he stayed for the entire conference. He was most interested in learning more about the compensation systems provided by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act. The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq., seemed most relevant, since the layers of preemption imposed by the PREP Act make product liability litigation over use of PREP Act “covered countermeasures” (which include vaccines) extremely unlikely.
Last year we recounted a decision that denied a preliminary injunction to selfish New Mexicans who think that they have a right to endanger others by refusing to be vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. Specifically the court denied relief to a registered nurse who claimed that she has a right to treat
The world order has been restored. The clouds have parted, and all today is in perfect resonant harmony. Ok, we are exaggerating. A lot. But we are pleased to report that at least one federal district court has correctly interpreted and applied the PREP Act. We are sure you are as relieved as we are.
Since the Supreme Court decided Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), product liability litigation over childhood vaccines is rare but not extinct. As demonstrated by today’s case — Garcia v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134330 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2022). And while the decision does discuss preemption, this
Last term the newly empowered conservative majority on the Supreme Court demonstrated to all that precedent is not so precedential, even when it had stood for nearly fifty years. They very nearly did it again, but just missed, targeting precedent on religious exemptions and vaccine mandates that has been around for more than twice as long.
Continue Reading Vaccine Mandates and Religion at the Supreme Court
Happy Star Wars Day. May the Fourth be with you.
If all FDA approved medicines enjoyed the preemption protection that vaccines do, the DDL product liability litigation landscape would be leaner and less nonsensical. Flores v. Merck & Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46442 (D. Nev. March 16, 2022), shows why that is so.
We have decried several times plaintiffs’ tendency in prescription medical product litigation, particularly mass torts, to try to sue into submission their opponents in scientific debates. This often takes the form of lawsuits alleging that journal articles, continuing medical education, and other forms of scientific discussion are actionable “misrepresentations.” We said some time ago:
These days, you are probably expecting a vaccine post to be about Covid. And while we are sure we are not done with litigation in that field, for today at least we thought we would harken back to a good, old-fashioned, garden variety vaccine products liability case and some tried and true preemption.
The plaintiff