1. Conclusion
1.1. In this case the Supreme Court ruled in affirmation of the lower courts in that the NCVIA applied. The court was created for this purpose and it's ruling was that the family could not prove the injuries were a direct result of the vaccine. Wyeth also followed all required guidelines when it came to advertising clear warnings of risks involved in use of the product.
2. Impact
2.1. Blackmon v American Home Products Corp.
2.1.1. The court declared that the defect must fall into two categrories defines by NCVIA; manufacturing or failure to warn in order to be compensatable. Outside these areas it is unavoidable.
3. Importance
3.1. The NCVIA was created to help keep vaccine manufacturers in the market. It helps protect them from some of the inheret liabilities of the industry. If unprotected, many players would leave the market altogether leaving a gap in the demand for vaccinations.
3.2. Other industries might also have theor own sets of protectsion in order to maintain a robust number of players in the market. Certain protections can limit the risk of specific lawsuits while working that certain field.
4. Influence
4.1. This case allows for the industry as a whole to grow under the protections of the NCVIA. With protection from design-defect claims, the manufactures are more willing to produce and can even begin to test immunizations on children and infants even younger.
4.2. Critisciams of the NCVIA worry that with the act in place, there are little incentives for the industry to continue to develop safer and better products. With the protections in place the manufactureres could become complacent and cut safe practices in echange for saving money.
5. Facts
5.1. Parties
5.1.1. Russel Bruesewitz, et al.
5.1.2. Wyeth, In., fka Wyeth Laboratories, et al.
5.2. What Happened
5.2.1. Hanna Bruesewitz recieves a 6month vaccine as an infant. She then stated developing seizures which the family claims was a result of the vaccine.
5.3. Procedural History
5.3.1. The family filed petition to recive compendation for the injuries but was denied due to the seizures not being on the list of compensatable injuries.
5.3.2. The family filed lawsuit in the state of Pennsylvania but the federal judge dismissed the lawsuit ruling that the NCVIA protected Wyeth from vaccine-injury based claims.
6. Issue
6.1. Does the federal law that shields vaccine manufacturers from liablibity in all cases where families seek compensation for injuries suffered by children.
7. Rule of Law
7.1. Does the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 apply to this case.
7.1.1. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was designed to handle cases such as these.
8. Application
8.1. In this specific case there is the question as to whether the warnings of vaccinne were above and beyond apparent prior to administartion of the shot.
8.2. The NCVIA was created to establish a "no fault" compensation court service to handle claims involding injury as a result from vaccines.
8.2.1. Did the family file claims correctly to seek compensation, proving that the vacinne was without a doubt the cause fo the injuries.