Bruesewutz Et Al V. Wyeth, LLC Et Al, 2011

1. LEGAL PRECEDENCE (RULE OF LAW)

1.1. Several groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) argues that NCVIA impacted vaccine manufacturers’ malpractice coverage, ultimately causing prices rise to cover these costs. This argument created a concern in Congress around market shrinkage due to manufacturers exiting the marketplace.

2. PETITIONER: Russell Bruesewitz et al. On behalf of his daughter, Hannah

3. CASE: Petitioner contends that the Respondents created a statute that purposefully gave advantage to Massachusetts wineries to block out other wineries that produce the majority of the US's wine supply. This subsequently violated the Commerce Clause.

4. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: In 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, many legal scholars contend that this statute affords a "blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers" resulting from tort actions filed in state or federal court by injured victims seeking compensation for injuries allegedly arising from defectively. designed vaccines.

5. RESPONDENTS: Wyeth, Inc Doing Business As Wyeth Laboratories

6. FACTS:

7. ISSUE (Legal Question): Did the 3rd Circuit make a mistake in upholding the decisions of this Courts regarding section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). Explicitly pertaining to vaccine design defect claims, whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable or not?

8. APPLICATION: The Petitioners-contend that they had precedence due to Wyeth and other medical professionals and organizations had knowledge of the adverse effects associated with their vaccine. They cited the history of the batch and lot of this injection's history, which had already had over 65 complaints filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With these claims, several resulted in emergency room and hospital stays and even death. The Respondent believed that they were protected by the NCVIA because it's purpose was to prevent vaccine manufacturers from suffering from high litigation costs.

9. CONCLUSION: "The Supreme Court ruled "that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed."

10. IMPACT: No other cases have cited the case discussed in this assignment.

11. IMPORTANCE: This case centers around it's impact on laws the protect manufacturers from civil litigation due to a "rare" and "unavoidable" defect in their processes or products. This ruling also raises the question of, if doctors are sworn under Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm," should the manufacturers of the tools that doctors use be held to that same oath?

12. INFLUENCE: "Rare" and otherwise "unavoidable" defects in products, even those defects which cause death, are not subject to civil compensation.

13. New Topic