Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> New York Legal Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: New York Legal BlogU.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Pharmaceutical Industry
By Mark Siesel, Esq.
In a great decision for victims of dangerous drugs throughout the United States, on March 4, 2009 the Supreme Court upheld a Vermont state court decision awarding 6.7 million to a woman who suffered permanent injuries from an anti-nausea drug. The case involved a Vermont resident who developed gangrene after a botched injection of the drug, which tragically resulted in the amputation of her hand and lower arm. The tragedy was compounded by the fact that the plaintiff was a musician, and lost her livelihood due to her injuries.
The physician's assistant who performed the injection used a highly risky intravenous push technique, which allowed the drug to enter an artery, rather than the intravenous drip technique, the much safer method in which the drug is injected into liquid already flowing into a vein. Allowing the drug to enter the artery causes immediate and irreversible gangrene. Wyeth's lawyers requested that the Supreme Court set aside the verdict, attempting to rely on the fact that they had complied with FDA labeling requirements. (In a case last year against medical device manufacturers of heart defibrillators, stents, and artificial hips, the Court had ruled that federal law and FDA scrutiny prevented product liability lawsuits in state courts). However, in a decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the elder statesman and most liberal member of the Supreme Court, the justices determined that Wyeth's warnings were insufficient and should have made abundantly clear the dangers of serious injury if the drug was injected improperly.
The decision to allow state damage suits will undoubtedly cause manufacturers to use greater care in the production and labeling of their products. We would also expect a revisiting of last year's decision protecting device makers, which seems somewhat inconsistent with the Court's welcome decision protecting the public this week.
Full post as published by New York Legal Blog on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Oil and Gas
industry workers allegedly subject to serious accident injury from hazardous conditions.
Water Contamination
Industry giants to pay $500,000 settlement in environmental lawsuit.
Railroad Workers
concerning the growing number of work-related injuries in the railroad industry.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of the Detainees in Massive Blow to Bush Administration
U.S. Supreme Court delivers blow to Tribal casinos
Supreme Scrooge: Arizona's Supreme Court Delivers a Serious Blow to Products Liability
Pfizer/Wyeth: bad for New Jersey
Wyeth Decision Seen as "Body Blow" to Bush Administration Efforts of Pre-emption








