We are not speaking for anyone else (clients, colleagues, our firm, etc.) when we say that drug and device product liability cases should be patterned after the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1 et seq.). It is faster, fairer, more predictable, and cheaper for everyone. From the defense side, we like that actions under the
In simpler times for those of us of a certain age, what we learned in elementary school was often supplemented during Saturday mornings watching cartoons. While you could pick up some information watching Super Friends or Captain Caveman, the catchy songs and minimalist animation of Schoolhouse Rock! really helped to teach children a range
We recently commented on claimants who manipulate and evade the Vaccine Act by making vaccine claims, only then to make no effort to pursue them. Their play is to abandon their claims after the statutory 240-day waiting period and file lawsuits, where they stand a better chance of recovering more money. Because we think the
Some of us on the Blog are veterans of the original vaccine wars – those that preceded the enactment of the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-10, et seq. That litigation, involving DTP and certain other childhood vaccines, nearly destroyed this country’s ability to vaccinate its children against often deadly diseases – much to the delight of antivaxxers everywhere. After Congress acted in 1986, much to the delight of everyone else, the Act’s alternative compensation system, combined with its strong preemption provisions restricting post-compensation system litigation have largely restored the nation’s childhood vaccine supply to a sound footing. The Supreme Court did its part in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 231-33 (2011), holding that the Vaccine Act preempted all design defect claims asserted by claimants who rejected Vaccine Act awards and sought to litigate their claims instead.Continue Reading Terrible Decision Contravenes the Vaccine Act’s Purpose and Would Gut Its Protections
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.Continue Reading Thoughts on a Vaccine Act MDL
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 received positive feedback on our recent post on the Vaccine Act, so a recent Sixth Circuit opinion affirming a dismissal under the Act caught our eye. In our last post, we described how the Vaccine Act sets up a no-fault claims process that claimants have to exhaust before they can sue in a
Breaking news here. The Ninth Circuit has upheld a preemption-based dismissal of a Vaccine Act case. See Holmes v. Merck & Co., No. 08-16557, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2012). As the docket number indicates, the Holmes appeal has been pending for over about 4 years. It was resubmitted in 2011 after Bruesewitz
Yesterday we were busy … or traveling … or whatever. Presumably everybody reading this already knows that yesterday the Supreme Court was simply busy – and decided the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth vaccine preemption case. Not only that, as everybody knows Bruesewitz was decided favorably to preemption by a 6-2 score. Since we don’t get any
The other day the Pennsylvania Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court), sitting en banc no less, decided to weigh in on Vaccine Act preemption. See Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 2011 Pa. Super 9, slip op. (Pa. Super Jan. 11, 2011). Briefly, the court did the same thing as the intermediate Georgia court did