1. 1. Facts
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Bruesewitz
1.1.2. Wyeth, LLC
1.2. What Happened
1.2.1. Hannah Bruesewtiz her DTP vaccine in 1992 and developed seizures
1.2.2. Her parents filed a lawsuit against Wyeth, LLC after Wyeth withdrew that vaccine from the market.
1.3. Procedural History
1.3.1. Circuit Court ruled in favor of Wyeth
1.3.2. Reviewed at Pennsylvania State Court who affirmed decision
1.3.3. Brought to U.S. Supreme court who affirmed decision
2. 6. Impact
2.1. Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphene Liability Litigation v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
2.1.1. This case evaluated damages caused by products containing propxyphene and referenced Bruesewtiz v. Wyeth to point to perceived damages that occurred with the vaccine
2.2. Milik v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
2.2.1. This case alleges Milik experienced a neurological condition as a result of the MMR vaccine. It was referenced due to similarities between the two cases
3. 7. Importance
3.1. This decision to affirm the lower court's ruling is important to anyone in the chain of administering childhood vaccines (from the manufacturer, to the pediatrician, to the end user)
4. 8. Influence
4.1. This case impacts the liability for drug manufacturers. It re-affirms what the law was and the scope of the liability when adverse effects occur from vaccines
4.2. This case can impact pediatricians who often administer vaccines to children.
5. 2. Issue
5.1. The court must determine if an alleged tort of seizures was caused by unsafe/irresponsible manufacturing practices of Wyeth, LLC.
6. 3. Rule of Law
6.1. The court must determine if the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects Wyeth against injury claims for injuries caused by its vaccine
7. 4. Analysis/Application
7.1. Bruesewitz
7.1.1. A tort occurred as a result of irresponsible manufacturing practices. It is the responsibility of Wyeth to ensure that their vaccine is safe and effective
7.2. Wyeth
7.2.1. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Wyeth is not liable for injuries that occur if the injuries were unavoidable. In this case the injuries are unavoidable and the vaccine was properly prepared
7.3. Court
7.3.1. The court ruled in favor of Wyeth and felt that under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Wyeth was not liable. This decision by the US Supreme court was not unanimous, however, and there were dissenting opinions.