Health Law

Silent Tort Reform: Watch out for Premption

People over Profits.  That is how it should be.  It isn't.

So now pharmaceutical companies and any company regulated by the federal government want to be able to keep you out of state court.  Why?  They say that because the federal government has approved a drug or medical device or consumer product, that it therefore is "safe".  We all know that is not necessarily true.  (It is also not a logical conclusion).

But by making this argument cases may only be able to be filed in Federal Court.  This is a BIG bonus for corporations, because it reduces where they have to defend lawsuits.  It also robs State's rights in my opinion.

The worst part of this is that it is not even always a federal law that makes this changes.  If an agency approves the product that may be enough to get the cases out of state court.

Kiss Your State's rights goodbye.

NEW ORLEANS (AP)— If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can't sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

Plaintiffs' attorneys call it "silent tort reform." But it's part of the tension that's existed since the nation's founding: conflict between state and federal law.

If they clash, state laws give way. That's in Article 6 of the Constitution. But in areas where there is no federal law, federal courts must defer to laws of the state where a lawsuit is heard. That includes product liability.

A developing body of judicial opinion could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products, consumer advocates say. It also could mean the savings of billions of dollars by companies insulated from lawsuits.

What's riling plaintiffs' lawyers, consumer groups and some regulators is agencies' assertions their rules override state product-liability laws. Most such claims are rooted in statements in the introductions to their rules, not the rules themselves.

"These pre-emption preambles may be only the beginning," New York University law professor Catherine Sharkey wrote in the DePaul Law Review.

Source:  WashingtonTimes.com

Full post as published by Cerebral Palsy Law Blog on April 01, 2008 (boomark / email).