1. FACTS
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Bruesewitzes Family
1.1.2. Wyeth (Drug Company)
1.2. What Hapened
1.2.1. 1992- Hannah developed seizure and hospitalized after getting six month diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine and continued to suffer from residual seizure disorder.
1.2.2. In 1998, the drug company Wyeth withdrew the type of vaccine used in Hannah's case from the market.
1.3. Procedural History
1.3.1. Hannah's parents filed petition under NCVIA which was denied
1.3.2. The Bruesewitzes filed a lawsuit again against Wyeth in state court in Pennsylvania.
1.3.2.1. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, according to National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
1.3.3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed.
2. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
2.1. "Can a federal law shield vaccine manufacturers from certain product liability lawsuits in state court that seek damages for serious health problems suffered by children?"
2.1.1. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc.'https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-152
3. RULE OF LAW
3.1. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
3.1.1. National Vaccine Program (§§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-6)
3.1.2. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (§§ 300aa-10 to 300aa-34)
4. APPLICATION
4.1. How each side present the Rule?What was the court's reasoning in its analysis?How did court apply the facts in the case to the legal requirements?What facts were compelling to the court in its analysis?Did I use analogy or make any public policy arguments?Did the court expand, reinterpret, or narrow the law to reach its conclusion?
4.1.1. Parties
4.1.1.1. Plantiff: Bruesewitz
4.1.1.1.1. As DTP vaccine has cause injuries to Hannah, it's manufacturer company Wyeth was subject to strict liability and liability for negligent design under Pennsylvania common law.
4.1.1.2. Defendant: Wyeth
4.1.1.2.1. Vaccine manufacturer companies are protected under NCVIA and not liable for "unavoidable side effect" cause by vaccine. Thus, PA law was preempted by NCVIA.
4.1.2. Facts for Reasoning
4.1.2.1. The NCVIA prevents all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers
4.1.2.1.1. Court has analyzed the phrase “side effects that were unavoidable” which exempt injuries caused by flawed design would require treating
4.1.2.1.2. In term of liability the Act only talks about "manufacture and warnings", But it do not mention about design defect liability.
4.1.2.1.3. Design defects do not mention in NCVIA or in FDA regulations
4.1.3. Expansion of Law
4.1.3.1. Court explain the phrase use in NCVIA "Side effects that are unavoidable" mean claims cannot filed for injuries cause by design defects.
4.1.3.1.1. This affirmed the protection that vaccine companies have to keep manufacturing vaccine and ensure continuous supply
4.1.3.2. Compensation Program
4.1.3.2.1. The vaccine manufacturers fund an compensation program through taxing their product.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1. Describe the decision of the court, and whether and how the Rule applies
5.1.1. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of lower court
5.1.2. Supreme Court Aaffirmed the protection provide to Vaccine Manufacturers provide by NCVIA that they are not liable for manufacture defect
5.1.3. Plaintiffs will get compensation for injury or death by filing a timely claim in the U.S.
5.1.4. Future vaccine related and compensation to injured related claims will held at special vaccine court
6. IMPACT
6.1. Identify and describe at least two cases that have cited the holding
6.1.1. Sebelius v. Cloer
6.1.1.1. This case has cited the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; to establish that NCVIA make victims eligible for getting Attorney fees
6.1.1.1.1. Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
6.1.2. HOLMES v. MERCK CO INC,
6.1.2.1. One year old Jacob Holmes dies after the seizure after getting vaccines. This case cited Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; which affirmed that "sides effects that unavoidable" exempt claims regarding injuries occur due to design defect.
6.1.2.1.1. FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.
7. IMPORTANCE
7.1. Evaluate why a business professional would care about the decision
7.1.1. Vaccine manufacturer professional would care about this case because through this case is that court affirmed the protection of Vaccine manufacturers that was granted by National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
7.1.2. Attorneys and law-order official now informed that all vaccine related claims restricted to vaccine court which also include 5000 vaccine-autism related
7.1.3. Public Healthcare sector can be ensured through this case that there will be uninterrupted supply of vaccine
8. INFLUENCE
8.1. Describe at least two current business practices that have been influenced by the holding
8.1.1. Vaccine Manufacturers
8.1.1.1. Protection of Vaccine manufacturer was affirmed by this case and it established that they are not liable for any unavoidable side effects
8.1.1.2. Vaccine Manufactures can keep making vaccines and research new vaccine products without fear of law suit for larger help of public
8.1.2. Vaccine Court
8.1.2.1. Future including 5000 vaccine-autism related claims were restricted to Court of Federal Claims (Vaccine Courts)
8.1.3. Public Heath Sector
8.1.3.1. This case affirmed that supply of vaccine in market will not face shortage due to lawsuits which is important for the good of general public