Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc

1. APPLICATION

1.1. The acts "quid pro quo" does provide what most deem sufficient compensation in the event of an incident like this case. This also is useful as it helps reduce the amount of costly litigation. In summary, the decision will ultimately affect the right of vaccine victims to seek and be rewarded compensation from vaccine manufacturers.

2. RULE OF LAW

2.1. According to the NCVIA act, this is an act that allows people injured by a vaccine to file for compensation. However, it is noted that the act does in fact eliminate accountability and also liability for a vaccine's sometimes, unseen and unavoidable side effects.

3. CONCLUSION- As stated in the procedural history, it (U.S Supreme Court) affirmed the lower courts judgement. Their reason for doing so was that the can't bring further to any court because received enough compensation from the act

4. At the end of the day, the real issue, or question that needs to be answered is simpley this.....Can a federal law protect vaccine companies from certain product liability lawsuits? This has to center around product liability.

5. FACTS

5.1. PARTIES -Russell Bruesewitz (PLANTIFF), and Wyeth, Inc. (DEFENDANT)

5.2. WHAT HAPPENED? -Two hours after receiving shots, the plantiffs child, Hannah started experiencing seizures, which placed them in the hospital for weeks. continued to suffer from residual seizure disorder that requires her to receive constant care. When Hannah was three-years-old, the Bruesewitz family then filed a petition seeking payment / compensation for her injuries that were sustained. Seemingly so, it then appeared that one month prior to the petition, new regulations eliminated Hannah's seizure disorder from the list of compensable injuries. Once this had happened, the Bruesewitzs family petition that they had submitted was denied. Three years later, in 1998, the drug company Wyeth withdrew the type of vaccine used in Hannah's inoculation from the market.

5.3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY -family filed a lawsuit against Wyeth in state of PA. Federal Court. In the federal court, judge ruled for dismissal of case stating that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protected Wyeth. Then after family appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed said decison. Case was then reviewed by US Supreme Court.

6. ISSUE

6.1. Does in fact the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provides immunity to vaccine manufacturers from injured victims?