Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011) by Mind Map: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

1. Mod 4

2. IRAC

2.1. Facts

2.1.1. Parties

2.1.1.1. Bruesewitz Family

2.1.1.2. United States

2.1.2. What Happened

2.1.2.1. 6 month old Hannah Bruesewitz started getting seizures after a DTP Vaccination

2.1.2.2. Hannah was hospitalized and was diagnosed with "residual seizure disorder"

2.1.2.3. The vaccine was made by Wyeth and was given on the CDC's recommended immunization schedule

2.1.3. Procedural History

2.1.3.1. The Bruesewitz family filed a claim to the NCVIA. Claim was denied as Hanna's disorder was not on the list of injuries for compensation

2.1.3.2. Bruesewitzes filed lawsuit in state court against Wyeth, but the court dismissed the suit

2.1.3.3. Bruesewitzes appealed but the court of appeals affirmed the decision

2.2. Issue before the Court

2.2.1. Whether the law can protect certain industries from specific product liability

2.3. Rule of Law

2.3.1. Congress enacted the NCVIA in 1986

2.3.1.1. was in an effort to help the vaccine market as this necessary service became difficult due to some public misconception

2.3.1.2. Act also was to make it easier for those injured from vaccines to receive compensation

2.4. Application

2.4.1. Plaintiff

2.4.1.1. The Bruesewitzes believes that Wyeth should be accountable on product liability claims.

2.4.2. Defendant

2.4.2.1. Wyeth had protection from "significant tort-liability" under the NCVIA.

2.4.2.1.1. Provided they had complied with all regulations

2.4.2.1.2. the act protected the manufactures from "unavoidable, adverse side effects"

2.4.3. Court

2.4.3.1. Justice Scalia stated that the NCVIA was set up to protect vaccine manufacturers from exactly this sort of liability

2.5. Conclusion

2.5.1. Supreme Court reinforced the lower courts stating that the NCVIA preempted the lawsuit against Wyeth.

3. 3 i's

3.1. Impact

3.1.1. more recently it's cited as allowing the Violence Against Women Act to be overturned in US. V Morrison (2000)

3.1.2. The NCVIA established the "Institute of Medicine" to continually review information on the impact of vaccinations

3.2. Importance

3.2.1. Vaccine Manufactures were given some protection to stay in the industry and keep making the vaccines that were vitally important to the public's health.

3.3. Influence

3.3.1. decision helped keep companies in the industry of making vaccines

3.3.1.1. Case made an excellent point on the industry becoming a victim of its own success in that the public became so much less concerned with the disease threat and more concerned with the vaccine risks

3.3.2. Decision brought up the debate of what is "unavoidably unsafe"

3.3.2.1. Not the same as defective

3.3.2.2. manufacturer isn't liable for inherent risk