Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc by Mind Map: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Russell Bruesewitz and Family

1.1.2. Wyeth Inc., fka Wyeth Laboratories

1.2. What Happened

1.2.1. Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz took their daughter, Hannah, in to get the baby's six month series of vaccinations

1.2.2. Hannah developed seizures shortly after and now requires constant care

1.2.3. Family's petition for compensation for her injuries was denied

1.2.4. 3 years later, Wyeth withdrew the type of vaccine Hannah was administered from the market

1.3. Procedural History

1.3.1. State court in PA dismissed the lawsuit

1.3.1.1. Ruled that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects Wyeth from lawsuits

1.3.2. U.S. Court of Appeals for 3rd Circuit Affirmed

1.3.3. Bruesewitz appealed to the Supreme Court

2. Issue

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?

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Rule of Supremacy - Whether or not a federal law superseeds the state law

3.1.1. Decided based on the idea of interstate commerce- Drug companies, FDA

3.2. Rule of Retroactivity - The action on Hannah occurred before the rule change- When they passed it, would it apply retroactively

3.2.1. People fall under it unless their entire case has been completed and they have received compensation

4. Application

4.1. Plaintiff would then argue that...

4.1.1. State law controls the statue and passage of the law only applied to those that got immunized after the law was changed

4.2. Wyeth would then argue that...

4.2.1. Federal law applies to any cases brought after the law was passed

4.2.2. Mediation panel-- federal government intended that cases were to go to mediation

5. Conclusion

5.1. Court affirmed the lower court ruling

6. Impact

6.1. Case 1: Marek Milik, et ux. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services

6.2. Case 2: Holmes v. Merck & Co., Inc

7. Importance

7.1. A business professional would care about the ruling because this ruling reaffirms the using of a "mediation" type process that is no fault, and protects companies that are innovating drugs/vaccines from being out of the market due to liability suits

8. Influence

8.1. The first business practice that was affected by this ruling is how drug companies are willing to experiment more with vaccination strains being that their liability is now limited

8.2. The second business practice that was affected by this ruling is how drug companies will now focus on advertising their products after claims are recorded against the companies