New York jury awards $8.75M to Volvo accident victim.

In a press release (12/4), Kreindler & Kreindler LLP wrote, "A New York jury has directed the Volvo Car Corporation to pay $8.75 million to a Yonkers man whose leg was crushed when he was hit by a 1987 Volvo 740 wagon that was missing a clutch starter safety switch, the victim's law firm, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, announced today. The May 2002 accident happened when the car lurched forward and pinned the victim, Manuel Reis, between a house and the vehicle."

New Mexico jury returns $54M verdict against ResCare.

The Louisville Courier-Journal (12/3, Howington) reported, "A jury in Albuquerque, N.M., has returned a damage award of about $54 million against ResCare Inc. over the rape of a disabled male resident in one of the company's group homes five years ago." Carl Bettinger, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that "The award was the largest ever in a New Mexico personal-injury suit.

La Salle University settles football brain-injury case for $7.5M.

The AP (11/30) reported that La Salle University in Philadelphia "will pay $7.5 million to provide lifetime care to a former football player who suffered a severe brain injury in a 2005 game, allegedly after an earlier concussion went untreated."
The New York Times (12/1, B14, Schwarz) reports, "Preston Plevretes, now 23, claimed that he was improperly treated by La Salle medical staff after sustaining a concussion during a practice in October 2005. Despite having continuing symptoms, the lawsuit said, Plevretes was cleared to play in a subsequent game in which a tackle caused brain damage that has left him with speech impediments, memory loss and other issues that require 24-hour care."

Pfizer ordered to pay $103 million in punitive damages in hormone drug cases.

On the front page of its Business Day section, the New York Times (11/24, B1, Wilson) reports, "Pfizer has been ordered to pay a total of $103 million in punitive damages to two women who were found to have breast cancer after they used" the hormone drugs Premarin and Prempro. Pfizer units Pharmacia and Wyeth "marketed the drugs as a standard, long-term hormone treatment for menopausal women, until medical evidence emerged indicating that such therapy raised women's risk of breast cancer." The FDA "added black-box warnings to the drugs' labels" after the finding, "cautioning that they be used at the smallest possible doses for the shortest possible time." Now, a jury has "reached a $28 million judgment" in a case Monday, "while a judge unsealed a month-old $75 million judgment in the other case."
Lawyers for the plaintiff Monday noted, "This is just the tip of the iceberg as Wyeth faces lawsuits from more than 10,000 additional women who also claim that Wyeth's drugs gave them breast cancer," Bloomberg News (11/24, Feeley, Pearson) reports. But, a Pfizer spokesman said that "of the 34 trial-set cases to date, there have been only four plaintiffs' verdicts that have not been set aside." The Legal Intelligencer (11/24, Elliott-Engel) and the Wall Street Journal (11/24, Loftus) also covered the story.

Florida jury orders Philip Morris to pay $300M to former smoker.

The AP (11/19) reported, "South Florida jury on Thursday ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $300 million to a former smoker, agreeing that the tobacco company's negligence was the cause of her emphysema. The award for Cindy Naugle, 61, is the largest to date among thousands of lawsuits filed in the state against tobacco companies." Richard A. Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, said, "Large verdicts encourage other large verdicts," adding, "This gives jurors permission to fully compensate plaintiffs for all the harm they suffered and to express their moral outrage at the industry's behavior."
Bloomberg News (11/20, Pettersson) reports, "Altria, based in Richmond, Virginia, said it will seek 'further review' of the verdict." Reuters (11/20, Keating) also covered the story.

Judge orders Pfizer to pay $75 million in punitive damages in Prempro case.

Bloomberg News (11/5, Feeley) reports, "Pfizer Inc. must pay about $75 million in punitive damages to an Illinois woman who developed cancer after taking one of the drugmaker's menopause treatments, people familiar with a sealed verdict in the case said." A judge ordered Pfizer's Wyeth unit "to pay the bad-conduct award, which is about 20 times larger than the $3.7 million in actual damages the panel awarded to Connie Barton over her use of Wyeth's Prempro menopause drug." At issue in the case was whether "Prempro helped cause the illness and the manufacturer failed to warn Barton and her doctors adequately about the drug's risks." The award "is the third surviving verdict in Prempro cases since juries began deciding them in 2006." A spokesman for Pfizer said the company plans "to ask the judge to reject both the compensatory and punitive awards."

Jury rules Wyeth concealed Prempro breast-cancer risks. $3.7 million verdict.

Bloomberg News (10/24, Feeley, Pearson) reported, "A Pfizer Inc. unit concealed the breast-cancer risks of its hormone-replacement therapy drug Prempro and is liable for $3.7 million in damages to an Illinois woman," a jury ruled. The plaintiff "developed invasive breast cancer five years after she began taking Prempro, made by Pfizer's Wyeth unit," and the jury concluded that "Wyeth was at fault and is liable for the compensatory damages." Jurors stated that "Wyeth officials 'negligently failed to adequately warn'" the plaintiff's "doctors about Prempro's cancer risks and that failure played a role in the physician's decision to prescribe the drug."

Jury awards $5.5 million to widows of men who died of mesothelioma.

The Bloomington Pantagraph (10/22, Brady-Lunny) reports, "A McLean County jury awarded three widows $5.5 million Wednesday in a lawsuit alleging their husbands were exposed to asbestos at a Bloomington factory. Merlon Dukes, Bob Blessing and John Watkins worked at Union Asbestos & Rubber Co., later called UNARCO Industries Inc., during the 1950s and 1960s. The men died of the asbestos-related disease mesothelioma, according to claims filed in civil court." The jury "found that Honeywell International Inc, through its corporate predecessor Bendix, conspired with other companies, including UNARCO, Johns-Manville, Raybestos-Manhattan, Owens-Illinois, Owens Corning and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., to fail to disclose information about the hazards of asbestos."

AAJ STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE FINDINGS ON MALPRACTICE COSTS

Washington, DC--“Today’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO) findings reiterate what we’ve always known: that medical malpractice claims have almost no effect on overall health care spending. Along with the CBO’s numbers and countless other academic assessments, the vast majority of empirical evidence suggests that there are only miniscule savings to be found in reforming our nation’s civil justice system.

“Despite claims by tort reformers that the greatest cost of malpractice claims are borne by the public in the form of ‘defensive medicine,’ today’s analysis shows that at most, malpractice reform would provide savings of 0.3 percent in this area. In total, tort reform would provide a paltry 0.5 percent savings, while putting patients at risk.

“Indeed the CBO itself raised concerns that limiting patients’ legal rights could further jeopardize patient safety. In the final paragraph of its analysis, it states ‘recent research has found that tort reform may adversely affect [health] outcomes.’

“According to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, malpractice claims make up just 0.3 percent of total health care costs. And we are confident that after weighing the totality of research on the subject, the public and Congress will see the truth: that limiting patients’ legal rights will do nothing to fix what ails our nation’s health care system.”

Florida mother awarded $330M after daughter's death in drunk-driving collision.

The St. Petersburg (FL) Times (10/1, Anderson) reported, "In what local court observers are calling one of the largest verdicts they can recall, a Hernando County [FL] jury on Wednesday awarded more than $330 million in civil damages to" Angela Stone, whose 13-year-old daughter, Shelby Taylor Hagman, was killed in 2007 by a drunk driver, Christopher Marcone. "Stone also has filed a wrongful death suit in Hillsborough against Kia Motors Corp. and a local auto dealer, claiming that a defective passenger restraint system - seat belt and shoulder harness - contributed to Shelby's fatal injuries." Stone's attorney, Steve Yerrid, said, "Kia is on notice. Because unlike Mr. Marcone, Kia has a lot more than $330 million. We'll see if they want to tussle."

New Jersey Supreme Court dismisses Merck's appeal over $4.5 million Vioxx ruling.

The AP (9/30) reports, "The Supreme Court of New Jersey backed a $4.5 million award to the widow of a man who suffered heart problems after using Merck's painkiller Vioxx." In doing so, "the court dismissed Merck's appeal and upheld" a lower court finding that "Merck and Co. failed to warn patient John McDarby about Vioxx's cardiac risks, which later caused the drug to be taken off the market." McDarby "suffered a heart attack in 2004, and died of complications related to his heart problems in late 2007."

Judge approves $24M settlement in Chrysler wrongful death case.

The AP (9/24) reported, "The bankruptcy court judge overseeing certain Chrysler assets has approved a $24 million settlement in the death of a California longshoreman run over by a Dodge pickup. The settlement comes more than two years after a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded damages of more than $55 million to the family of Richard Mraz. The family argued the automaker had failed to fix and adequately warn consumers about a transmission defect that made it appear trucks were in park position, when they actually were between gears."

California college student awarded $49M in personal injury case.

The Recorder (9/24, Moser) reports, "A Santa Clara, Calif., jury awarded $49 million in damages Monday to a college student who was on his way to a camping trip when two trucks collided and one struck the car he was riding in, causing him traumatic brain injuries. It appears to be the biggest single-plaintiff personal injury jury verdict by far in at least the past 10 years in Santa Clara County Superior Court, according to a scan of VerdictSearch, a Recorder affiliate." Randall Scarlett of San Francisco personal injury firm Scarlett Law Group, who represented the student, said, "The numbers are certainly significant, but I think they only represent the staggering cost of care to individuals sustaining traumatic brain injury."

FDA requires "black box" warning for promethazine.

The AP (9/17, Johnson) reports, "Makers of injected promethazine, a sedative also used to treat nausea and vomiting, are being required to put the strongest warning possible on the product because it can cause tissue damage leading to amputation," according to the FDA. Regulators said that "makers of generic promethazine will have to put a 'black box' warning at the top of the detailed package insert explaining that when the drug is administered incorrectly, it can damage skin severely, including causing gangrene."

South Carolina SC upholds $10M verdict against insurer in policy revocation case.

The AP (9/15, Collins) reports, "The South Carolina Supreme Court on Monday upheld a multimillion-dollar verdict against an insurer whom the justices said revoked a man's health policy after he tested positive for HIV based solely on a nurse writing down the wrong year for the test. The court in this conservative, often pro-business state called Fortis Insurance Company's actions 'highly reprehensible,' but did reduce punitive damages awarded to Jerome Mitchell Jr. from $15 million to $10 million.

Eighth circuit upholds $3.2M award to injured Nebraskan.

The AP (9/2, Ortiz) reported, "A federal appeals panel on Wednesday upheld a $3.2 million award to a Nebraska man left with serious injuries after he was thrown from another man's inflatable fishing boat in 2003

Enterprise Faces Class Action Over Rental Insurance

Law360, New York (August 27, 2009) is reporting as follows: A former Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. customer has hit the rental car company with a class action alleging it fraudulently misrepresented the terms of its personal accident insurance benefit in its marketing and sale of the policy to potential renters over the past five years. Viktor Polyakov filed an amended class action Aug. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of all renters who have purchased personal accident insurance with Enterprise and its Idaho-based subsidiary Enterprise of Utah since March 2005. The complaint, which claims that the company funneled customers' insurance fees into a subsidiary instead of using them to pay for legitimate insurance policies for renters, seeks certification of the proposed class, injunctive relief, punitive damages under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, restitution and attorneys' fees. The case is Polyakov v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. et al., case number 09-cv-00408, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Philip Morris ordered to pay $13.8M to smoker's daughter.

The New York Times /AP (8/25, B2) reports, "A jury on Monday ruled that Philip Morris USA should pay $13.8 million in punitive damages to the daughter of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer. The jury, in Los Angeles Superior Court, voted 9-3 in favor of Jodie Bullock. Her mother, Betty Bullock, died of lung cancer in February 2003."

Medical system improves after liver donor's death, malpractice suit.

The Albany Times Union (8/16, Odato) reported, "Seven years after the hospital death of liver transplant donor Michael Hurewitz, a lot has happened to remove the dangers of such surgeries. The Saratoga County [NY] man's tragic end prompted health professionals and regulators to adopt protections for living donors who sometimes make emotional decisions to help another human being." The new system "attempts to make sure both sides of the transplant surgery get equal attention." The state "fined the hospital that handled the procedure and Mount Sinai temporarily halted liver transplants. In 2003, it settled a wrongful death suit with the widow, Victoria 'Vickie' Hurewitz, for $2.5 million."

Sotomayor confirmed to be first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

USA Today (8/6, Kiely) reports, "Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who grew up speaking Spanish in a public housing project, is headed for a seat on the Supreme Court after an overwhelming Senate vote Thursday to make her the first Hispanic member of the court." Sotomayor's "elevation prompted jubilation among leaders of the nation's fast-growing Hispanic community." The tally "was 68-31, with only the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., missing the roll call. Nine Republicans joined 57 Democrats and two independents in confirming President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee." The Los Angeles Times (8/7, Oliphant, Savage) says Sotomayor "completed an unlikely and historic journey," while the AP (8/7, Davis) refers to "a history-making Senate vote," and notes that President Obama, "the nation's first black president, praised the Senate's vote as 'breaking another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union.' He planned to welcome Sotomayor at the White House next week."
ABC World News (8/6, story 3, 2:15, Crawford-Greenburg) said that after the vote "there was joy and pride, as Hispanics across the country and the President celebrated an historic first." Obama was shown saying, "This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it is a wonderful day for America." The CBS Evening News (8/6, lead story, 2:30, Couric) also reported that "Obama says it's a wonderful day for America," and went on to refer (Andrews) to the vote as "a history-making moment." A follow-up story on the CBS Evening News (8/6, story 2, 2:30, Couric) said that "all over the country today, Hispanics were celebrating this milestone." NBC Nightly News (8/6, lead story, 3:00, P. Williams) similarly reported that "around the country Hispanic groups were celebrating. ... Huge cheers in Los Angeles where Hispanic supporters joined to watch the historic Senate vote. Here and at similar gatherings around the country pride in having a Supreme Court justice from the nation's fastest growing minority, now 15% of the population."
Adam Liptak, in the New York Times (8/7, A12), writes that while "the new justice's presence will unsettle and reshuffle the court," Supreme Court "specialists said they do not expect her to take a fundamentally different approach from Justice Souter, whom she is succeeding, in most kinds of cases. They also cautioned that a justice's first few years are often a poor indicator of a long-term philosophy."

Minnesota families to testify in favor of Medical Device Safety Act.

Minnesota's Pioneer Press (8/3, Snowbeck) reported, "Two Minnesota families are offering arguments in Washington, D.C., today" in favor of the proposed Medical Device Safety Act. "Mark and Janice Baird, of Oakdale, are scheduled to talk at a news conference about their 16-year-old son, Mark, a pacemaker-dependent patient who died in September 2006. Mark's heart device was made by Fridley-based Medtronic, and his parents believe his death was related to a problem with the device, according to a copy of their letter to the committee provided by the American Association for Justice, a trade group for trial lawyers. The trade group also announced Monday that Michele Meyer, of Cambridge, will submit a letter about her daughter Katie, who died at age 30 after her Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillator experienced problems."

Ex-Guess employees awarded $370M in civil defamation suit.

The AP (7/28) reported, "A jury returned a $370 million verdict against Guess Inc. co-founder Georges Marciano Friday in a civil defamation lawsuit that was filed by five former employees. Each ex-employee will get $69 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, according to the Los Angeles County Superior Court verdict."

Florida student awarded $1.6M in school bus crash case.

The Tampa Tribune (7/27, Leskanic) reported, "A jury deliberated for three hours Monday before finding the Pasco County school district negligent in a 2006 crash that severely injured a 16-year-old boy. The jury awarded Marcus Button, now 19, and his parents, Robin and Mark Button, $1.625 million in damages, which his mother has said she will use to pay for his continuing medical care." Marcus Button "was injured Sept. 22, 2006, when the car he was riding in collided with a Pasco County school bus."

Former umpire urges passage of Medical Device Safety Act.

The New Haven Register (7/21, Sullo) reported, "Mark Hirschbeck had his dream job as a Major League Baseball umpire and reached a career high with the 2001 World Series, but he says what started as routine hip replacement surgery cost him his career and has led to years of pain." Hirschbeck ultimately underwent three hip replacements with a ceramic hip supplied by Wright Medical technology, suffering problems with each one. He has a suit pending against his doctor and Wright, and he "is among those advocating for Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act."
The AP (7/21) reported, "The 48-year-old Shelton resident says the legislation is needed to undo a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that shielded medical device manufacturers from lawsuits." He "says companies must be held responsible for faulty products."

Michigan settles prison abuse class-action for $100M.

The AP (7/15) reported, "Michigan has agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class-action lawsuit by more than 500 female inmates who claimed they were sexually assaulted, abused and harassed by male corrections staff. Gov. Jennifer Granholm authorized the settlement after juries in two trials returned with verdicts that, with interest, would have totaled nearly $60 million, Department of Corrections spokesman Russ Marlan said." A jury in 2008 "awarded 10 female inmates $15.5 million for abuse they suffered at the hands of male staff at Scott Correctional Facility in Plymouth. A second jury awarded more than $8 million to female inmates at another facility."
The Detroit Free Press (7/15, Seidel) reported, "'This is a good deal for the state,' said Deborah LaBelle, the lead lawyer for the women. 'The damage had gone on so long and the harm had occurred was so deep. If we tried all of these, the cost to the state would have been a billion dollars.'"

Houston man awarded $10M in malpractice case.

The Houston Chronicle (7/2, Ackerman) reports that a Harris County, Texas, judge "ruled in favor of a Houston man in a medical malpractice case" on Tuesday, "awarding him $10 million in damages stemming from a lawsuit against Methodist Hospital and the doctors who treated him there." John German's left leg required amputation above the knee and he lost "all the toes on his right foot and all of his fingers in the aftermath of heart surgery in 2002."

Ex-marine wins $16.25M in negligence settlement.

The Philadelphia Inquirer (7/1, Bender) reports that Scott Skirpan, "a softhearted ex-Marine from Easton, lost both his legs three years ago in a gruesome industrial accident at a Northampton County landfill. This week in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the firm that owns the landfill, and Caterpillar Inc. - which made the bulldozer that crushed his legs like toothpicks - agreed to pay Skirpan a whopping $16.25 million to settle his negligence lawsuit in midtrial. It is one of the largest settlements in Pennsylvania history for a single-victim personal-injury case, lawyers said. But Skirpan, a cement-finisher, says he'd rather be a working stiff with four limbs than a millionaire who can't walk."
The AP (6/30) reported that Skirpan "says other workers stood by and watched and he had to call 911 on a cell phone." Skirpan "sought help from lawyers who got the settlement worked out. Paul Lauricella of The Beasley Firm in Philadelphia says he hoped things would work out the right way and in this case he thinks they di

GM agrees to take responsibility for future liability claims.

The AP (6/28, Fowler) reported General Motors "has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock" on the company's way to a "quick sale of its assets" and emergence from bankruptcy. GM "wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits." But in a "concession to consumer groups and state officials who had threatened to block the sale because of product liability concerns, the new company will now assume responsibility for future claims involving vehicles made by the old company."
The Wall Street Journal (6/29, A4, Spector) reports that the agreement "represents a partial victory for more than a dozen state attorneys general and several consumer-advocacy groups."
The Washington Post (6/29, Tse, Marr) reports, "Those with past claims would have to pursue the GM left behind in bankruptcy with nothing but unwanted assets, debts and other liabilities. That means these consumers are likely to recover little, if anything." On Friday "Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) introduced legislation that would require automakers to purchase liability insurance if they are owned by the federal government or have federal loans. This insurance must protect against past and future claims, even after a bankruptcy filing." Bloomberg News (6/28, Lui) also covered the story.
The New York Times (6/28, A20, De La Merced) reported GM and the Obama Administration's auto task force "have been negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general who have objected" to GM's asset sales plan.
The Washington Post (6/27, Dennis, Tse, Marr) reported earlier on the talks leading to the agreement.

Weisbrod: Healthcare reform must not limit legal rights.

In a USA Today (6/22, 2.29M) op-ed, AAJ president Les Weisbrod writes, "Discussing negligence as part of health care reform is a distraction from the debate." Fixating on the legal system "ignores the larger issue: patient safety. As many as 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors. If medical negligence becomes rarer, so will the number of injured patients who need to seek legal recourse." Weisbrod argues, "Any 'reform' that makes it more difficult for injured patients to seek legal recourse is unacceptable." He continues, "Limiting the legal rights of patients will do nothing to provide insurance coverage or lower health care costs. Eliminating errors and keeping patients safe will most certainly accomplish these goals."

Exxon owes about $450M in interest on Valdez damages.

Dow Jones Newswires (6/16, Gonzalez) reported, "A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that [Exxon Mobil Corp.] must pay interest dating back to 1996 on the $507.5 million in punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs after a Supreme Court decision last year. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that Exxon, and not the plaintiffs, would be responsible for the $70 million it spent in legal costs during the lengthy legal battle that arose from the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989." Jeffrey Fisher, "a Stanford law professor and a partner with Seattle law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, told Dow Jones Newswires that accrued compounded interest on the penalty amounted to about $500 million, but the company had negotiated with some plaintiffs to keep 11% of the payments," leaving the total owed at about $450 million.

Massey ruling said to highlight problems with judicial elections.

The Wall Street Journal (6/10, A5, Koppel) reports, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system "say states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."
Massey ruling seen as giving states ability to develop stringent recusal standards. The Charleston Gazette (6/9, Knezevich) reported that campaign finance reform supporters in West Virginia "hope the U.S. Supreme Court's decision involving state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin will spur action on public-finance legislation and changes to the state's donor disclosure rules." Bert Brandenburg, director of the national organization Justice at Stake, said, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent recusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."
WPost weighs in on Massey ruling. The Washington Post (6/10) editorializes, "The Supreme Court ruled this week that a victorious judicial candidate who receives extraordinary assistance from a donor should step aside from deciding cases that are 'pending or imminent' in which the donor has a substantial stake." The Post says, "The decision raised more questions than it answered, but it should serve as a call for states to tighten judicial ethics standards and rethink judicial elections altogether." Concluding, the paper says, "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics."

Washington judge orders Expedia to pay $184 million to hotel customers.

The National Law Journal (6/4, Bronstad) reports, "A judge in Washington state has ordered Expedia Inc. to pay more than $184 million for breaching its contract with hotel customers by charging service fees that generated profits for the online travel booking firm." Steve Berman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said "that the judgment was the largest to date in the state of Washington for a consumer class action."

Consumer groups, trial lawyers criticize GM, Chrysler bankruptcy plans.

The Hill (6/3, Swanson) reports, "Consumer groups and trial lawyers are crying foul over the Obama administration's bankruptcy plans for General Motors and Chrysler" because "those plans would extinguish all ongoing auto accident claims that blame a death or serious injury on a defective GM or Chrysler vehicle." According to Clarence Dilow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, "the plans are unusual in that they would prevent anyone from bringing a future liability claim against GM or Chrysler if a car already purchased from either company is defective and results in an accident causing death or serious injury." Also, he added, "it was...unusual for no money to be set aside for liability claims."
On the Wheels blog on the New York Times website (6/3) Christopher Jensen writes, "In approving the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to a new company, run by Fiat, over the weekend, Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez also granted the automaker's request that the new company not be held liable for future product-liability problems involving current owners" which "means people who own a Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep have lost their right to sue if they are injured by a safety defect." He says that consumer groups are concerned that "people who already have been injured in accidents and have filed suits against Chrysler, asserting that a vehicle had a safety defect" will not get any money from the carmaker even if they "win in court."
ClickonDetroit (6/3) also covers the story and reports, "It's like slamming the courthouse door in the victim's face." Consumer groups want the "new Chrysler" to "at least create a victim's fund."

New York City agrees to pay $2 million for death of patient after ED wait.

The New York Times (5/28, A24, Chan) reports, "New York City has agreed to pay $2 million to the family of a woman who died last year on the floor of the psychiatric [emergency department (ED)] at Kings County Hospital after waiting more than 24 hours to be treated." In doing so, "the city's Health and Hospitals Corporation accepted full responsibility for the death of the woman...and said it had taken steps to relieve crowding and increase the size of the staff to provide mental health services at the hospital." A February 2009 report from the federal Department of Justice "that found, among other problems, that patients were not treated for suicidal behavior, were routinely subdued with physical restraints and drugs instead of receiving individualized psychiatric treatment, and were abused by other patients."
The AP (5/28, Matthews) notes that the "report became public when Alan Aviles, president of the city's Health and Hospitals Corp., announced reforms at the hospital including the replacement of its top two administrators and the addition of 200 medical personnel." He explained that "the improvements would shorten the average time patients wait in the psychiatric [ED] to eight hours, down from 27 hours."

US Supreme Court rejects Chrysler appeal of $13 million damage award.

Bloomberg News (5/26, Stohr) reported, "The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Chrysler LLC's appeal of a $13 million punitive damage award to the family of an 8-month-old who died in a 2001 Tennessee accident while riding in a Dodge Caravan." The car company "argued unsuccessfully that the award violated constitutional limits on damages laid out in previous Supreme Court cases."
The AP (5/26) reported, "The lawsuit claimed 8-month-old Joshua Flax was riding in the back seat of a 1998 Dodge Caravan in Nashville, Tenn., in 2001 when the vehicle was rear-ended, causing the front passenger seat to collapse and the passenger to strike him, fracturing his skull."

Preemption Victory for Ordinary Consumers

Today, President Obama issued a Directive to the Heads of all Executive Branch Departments and Agencies stating it is the policy of his Administration that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” Preemption of state common law will no longer be presumed or asserted by regulatory agencies absent “explicit preemption by Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.”

In order to ensure that executive departments and agencies include statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have a sufficient legal basis, the President’s directive provides that:

"1. Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation.

2. Heads of departments and agencies should not include preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption…

3. Heads of departments and agencies should review regulations issued within the past 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended by the department or agency to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption. Where the head of a department or agency determines that a regulatory statement of preemption or codified regulatory provision cannot be so justified, the head of that department or agency should initiate appropriate action, which may include amendment of the relevant regulation.”

House lawmakers hear debate over medical device preemption.

CQ HealthBeat (5/14, Kim) reports that the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee "heard witness testimony on a measure that would allow consumers to sue companies under state law for injuries sustained by sophisticated medical devices" on Tuesday. Supporters of HR 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, said "that the bill would ensure product safety and consumer protection, while opponents argued that the bill would stifle life-saving medical innovation and impose unnecessary regulation on medical device companies." The bill is in response "to a Supreme Court ruling issued last year that states that under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, certain medical devices that must go through Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pre-marketing approval are preempted from being sued for liability under state law." That decision "has already resulted in 1,400 injury cases being thrown out of court, said Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) [a] co-sponsor of the bill. It's the possibility of litigation that is one of the most powerful incentives to safety, Waxman said."
NPR (5/13, Silberner) reported, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2008 that an OK from the Food and Drug Administration for a high-tech medical device is all a manufacturer needs to avoid being sued in state court." Now, "Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) wants to change that." He said, "There are problems with medical devices that arise outside of the FDA approval process because that process is limited. ... And we should not preclude people from suing and recovering damages if something comes up."
Modern Healthcare (5/13, Rhea) reported that House lawmakers "listened to testimony from experts and patients and argued the merits of the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The act is "sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.)" and "would negate the Supreme Court's decision in last year's Riegel vs. Medtronic case, which involved a Medtronic-manufactured balloon catheter that ruptured inside the patient during coronary artery surgery."

Missouri appeals court restores $17 million verdict against American Family Mutual.

The AP (5/6, Twiddy) reports, "A Missouri appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a $17 million verdict against American Family Mutual Insurance Co. as part of a class-action lawsuit over aftermarket vehicle parts." The appeals court said that "Jackson County Circuit Judge Edith Messina was wrong when she overturned a jury's decision last year against the Madison, Wis.-based insurer." The appeals court added that "the plaintiffs 'presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that aftermarket parts are not of like kind and quality to (original manufacturer) parts and that American Family breached its contacts with its policyholders when it paid to return the damaged vehicle to pre-loss condition based on the nature and cost of aftermarket parts.'"

Iovate recalls 14 Hydroxycut products following FDA warning to consumers.

The Wall Street Journal (5/2, Favole) reported, "Consumers should 'immediately stop' using Hydroxycut weight-loss products amid concerns they may cause jaundice and liver failure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday." Responding to "23 serious reports of health problems with Hydroxycut products and one death in a 19-year-old male who had used the weight-loss products," regulators are "strongly" advising "people against using 14 Hydroxycut products," according to Linda Katz, interim chief medical officer in the FDA's food safety and nutrition division.
The Los Angeles Times (5/2, Stein) reported that Hydroxycut manufacturer, Iovate Health Sciences Inc., is "recalling most of its Hydroxycut products from the market." Meanwhile, regulators remain unsure "which ingredients or dosages could be causing the problems," as "the recalled products contain several ingredients, among them herbal extracts." The health problems reported to the FDA included "jaundice, elevated liver enzymes, liver damage (requiring a transplant), seizures, and cardiovascular disorders."
The New York Times (5/2, B3, Singer) reported that two Iovate products, "Hydroxycut Cleanse and Hoodia, with different ingredients, are not affected by the recall." The company's move follows "a series of incidents that raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration has adequate authority to regulate the dietary supplement industry and provide consumer protection." Dietary supplements, "which can offer general health benefits but cannot claim to treat specific diseases or symptoms," do not require "FDA approval to go on sale."
The AP (5/2, Alonso-Zaldivar) reported, however, that "regulators monitor aftermarket reports for signs of trouble, and in recent years companies have been put under stricter requirements to alert the FDA when they learn of problems." Katz noted that "part of the problem is that the FDA looks at dietary supplements from a post-market perspective," relying on "voluntary reports to detect...problems." Bloomberg News (5/2, Larkin Gaoette) and the Los Angeles Times (5/1, Stein) Booster Shots blog also covered the story.

Iowa family receives $17 million in medical malpractice settlement.

The AP (5/1) reports, "The family of an Iowa County girl permanently disabled by a surgeon has received a $17 million settlement from the state's medical malpractice fund." According to court documents, the physician "used a blender-like device to help remove the" patient's spleen, "but caused internal damage that left the" patient "with permanent brain injuries." The patient now "cannot speak, uses a feeding tube, and requires around-the-clock care." For his part, the physician claims "he hadn't used the device before and didn't tell the girl's parents he would be using it."

Jury awards $2.1 million in Illinois medical malpractice suit.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (4/28, Rohde) reports, "A jury awarded $2.1 million a former Illinois restaurant operator in a medical malpractice case he brought for injuries suffered during treatment he received after a devastating motorcycle accident nearly nine years ago." The jury found that "Dr. Lorraine C. Novich-Welter was negligent in the medical care she provided to Daniel R. Nelson, now 49."

United to pay $3 million to former employee.

The AP (4/27) reports, "A federal court jury in Denver has awarded $3 million to a former United Airlines employee after finding the company retaliated against her for complaining about discrimination." The employee alleged that when she needed to take unpaid leave she was denied and when she didn't show up to work, she was fired. However, she said that "United often approved requests for unpaid leave from male ramp supervisors."

Prempro Case Not Preempted

Bloomberg News (4/21, O'Reilly) reports, "Wyeth, the drugmaker being acquired by Pfizer Inc., must face a lawsuit by a woman who claims her breast cancer was caused by the menopause medicine Prempro [estrogens, conjugated/medroxyprogesterone], a Texas appeals court ruled." The court decided that "Susan Brockert's 'failure-to-warn' claims aren't preempted by federal drug-labeling regulations, overturning a district judge's finding from February 2007." In its decision, "the appeals panel cited last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a $7 million award to a musician who lost her arm after being injected with Wyeth's Phenergan [promethazine] nausea treatment." The Supreme Court had ruled that "patients can sue drugmakers for failing to provide adequate safety warnings, even when a treatment and its packaging are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." The case will now be "sent back to the lower court for further proceedings."

Settlements over long-term insurance policies in Missouri valued at $15 million.

The Kansas City Star (4/21, Margolies) reports, "Two insurers and an insurance administrator have agreed to end litigation over the sale of long-term care insurance policies by entering into settlements valued at $15 million." Hundreds of Missouri residents "who bought policies from American Heritage Life Insurance Co. and Wakely and Associates Inc." will be affected by the agreements.

Manhattan jury awards woman $27.5 million after city bus ran over her.

The New York Times (4/17, A22, Robbins) reports that Gloria Aguilar was "awarded $27.5 million" by a jury "after a New York City Transit bus ran over her while it was turning a corner two blocks from her apartment in 2005." She "had to have her leg amputated and has worn a prosthetic leg ever since."

Bayer settling suits over contrast agent used for imaging tests.

Bloomberg News (4/16, Pearson, Fisk) reports that Bayer AG "has started settling lawsuits over its Magnevist contrast agent used in diagnostic imaging tests." In May 2007, the Food and Drug Administration "ordered...that all five gadolinium-based agents in the US carry a black-box warning, the agency's strictest caution." The products are "used to highlight internal organs in magnetic resonance imaging scans." The FDA claimed that "patients with weak kidneys who receive the gadolinium-based agents are at risk of nephrogenic system fibrosis." Now, "Bayer, General Electric Co., and Tyco International Ltd. are among companies facing more than 300 lawsuits over complaints that contrast agents containing the chemical gadolinium may increase the risk of death in patients with weak kidneys." Peter Burg, an attorney with Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine PC, who is head of a steering committee of lawyers for the product's users, "said negotiations would include state court cases and lawsuits consolidated in federal court in Cleveland."

Citigroup ordered to pay fine for misleading investors.

The Arizona Republic (4/15, Harris) reports, "The Arizona Corporation Commission on Tuesday ordered Citigroup Global Markets Inc. to pay a $455,128 fine after regulators say the company provided misleading information on auction-rate securities sales in Arizona." This marks the "final step in the state's auction-rate securities case against Citigroup, settled in August." Citigroup "neither admitted nor denied the commission's findings." According to the commission, "the investigation into Citigroup's role in the marketing of auction-rate securities was part of a larger effort to address problems in connection with such investments."
The Arizona Daily Star (4/14) reported, "The investigation was part of a 12-state inquiry into whether prominent Wall Street firms misled investors when placing them into auction-rate securities." Under the settlement, "Citigroup agreed to buy back the securities and reimburse investors who sold at a loss."

Removing recalled Medtronic leads seen as difficult by most experienced surgeons.

The New York Times (4/7, B1, Meier) reports that Sprint Fidelis, which is a heart defibrillator cable, was pulled from the market by Medtronic after "five patients who had the cables died." However, "in the next few years, thousands of those patients may face risky surgical procedures to remove and replace the electrical cable, which connects a defibrillator to a chamber of the heart." So far, there have been four deaths due to damage done to blood vessels when less experienced doctors attempted to remove the leads. "Last year, to win approval for a new heart cable from the Food and Drug Administration, the company agreed to provide the F.D.A. with future data from '10 experienced extraction centers,' according to agency records." However, "Medtronic says it does not plan to make such a list public." Thus far, "Medtronic has been shielded...from legal claims over the recalled device" and "more than 1,000 patient lawsuits involving the Sprint Fidelis have been thrown out because of a ruling last year by the Supreme Court."

Victim wins $22.3 million from pharmaceutical company.

The New York Law Journal (4/2, Fass) reports that three decades after his daughter had been immunized against polio and Mr. Tenuto contracted the disease after coming in contact with the infant's stool, becoming paralyzed, he "has won a $22.3 million verdict in New York state court against Lederle Laboratories, the giant pharmaceutical company he claims negligently manufactured the vaccine Orimune and failed to adequately warn doctors of its dangers."

Wyeth ruling seen as win for consumers.

The Toledo Blade (3/25) editorialized, "Consumers have been handed an important victory by the U.S. Supreme Court in the form of a 6-3 decision in a case in which the high court dismissed the argument of drug makers and the Bush administration that federal approval of drugs shields them from lawsuits by injured patients." The Blade concluded, "The high court didn't buy the" Bush "administration's view that the policy constituted federal law, noting that Congress has passed laws regulating drugs for a century without prohibiting consumers from suing drug makers. And if the threat of lawsuits is the incentive to better scrutinize all drugs in development as well as existing drugs, so much the better."

Seroquel study exposed, drug risks kept secret.

In an story that appears on its front page, the Washington Post (3/18, A1, Vedantam) reports, "The study would come to be called 'cursed,' but it started out just as Study 15" which "was a long-term trial of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel." Recently exposed "documents show" that "Study 15 suffered the same fate as many industry-sponsored trials that yield data drugmakers don't like: It got buried" and "it took eight years before a taxpayer-funded study rediscovered what Study 15 had found -- and raised serious concerns about an entire new class of expensive drugs." The study's findings "were never published" or distributed to physicians, and marketing campaigns were developed based on "less rigorous studies" that yielded "positive results." The FDA received the results of the study but "the agency has strenuously maintained that it does not have the authority to place such studies in the public domain." Only through lawsuits have the "details of Study 15...emerged."

California proposes campaign reforms for judges.

The National Law Journal (3/16, MacLean) reports, "Proposed reforms to ethical and campaign requirements for California's judiciary would for the first time require trial judges to disqualify themselves in cases in which they received $1,500 or more in campaign donations from either side" and "in a second major change, lawyers challenging sitting judges for election would be evaluated using the same evaluation system that the Judicial Nominations and Evaluations Commission uses for appointed judges." William McLaughlin, chairman of judicial campaign finance task force, "referring to the West Virginia case" said that "there are indications elsewhere that caused us to think that, to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, we need not only to honor [the canons] but also establish a rule to require recusal." He added, "The $1,500 donation limit was selected because that is already the amount set by law for recusal if a judge owns stock in a company with a matter before him or her."

Families awarded $150 million from Exxon oil spill in Maryland.

The AP (3/13, Nuckols) reports, "A jury awarded about $150 million to 91 families Thursday who sued Exxon Mobil over wells contaminated by a gasoline leak north of Baltimore." A leak in "an underground storage tank bled about 26,000 gallons of gasoline over 37 days in Jacksonville." The company had already "paid a $4 million settlement to the state – the largest civil penalty ever levied by the Maryland Department of the Environment."

Expert witness testifies in Libby trial.

The AP (3/11) reports that Dr. Aubrey Miller, "a medical expert testifying Tuesday in the W.R. Grace trial described his disbelief when, arriving in Libby 10 years ago, he found that people who had never worked at Grace's vermiculite mine were dying from asbestos-related disease." He said, "To see an individual who had died of asbestos-related disease who was not a worker was unheard of." He added, "I had never seen a case or heard of a case like that." The doctor "testified about a range of product tests that Grace officials used to assess the hazards of Libby vermiculite." He said, "Among its findings, Grace learned that the vermiculite had a high tendency to release asbestos fibers into the air."

Widow wins $4 million in medical malpractice case.

The Legal Intelligencer (3/10, Needles) reported, "The wife of a man who died after his doctor allegedly failed to diagnose and treat him for heart disease has been awarded $4 million by a Berks County jury." The jury deliberated for nearly five hours at the close of an eleven day trial and "found Dr. Donald J. McBryan Jr. and his group, Berks Internal Medicine, negligent in the death of Gregory S. Volutza."

Wyeth seen as "body blow" to Bush administration efforts of pre-emption.

The Legal Times (3/9, Mauro) reported, "Last week's decisive Supreme Court ruling against Wyeth in a landmark pharmaceutical product liability case may also close off a major front in a hard-fought battle by businesses and the Bush administration to insulate national corporations from state tort litigation." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, saying, "Wyeth has not persuaded us that failure-to-warn claims like Levine's obstruct the federal regulation of drug labeling." He added that "until recent years, the Food and Drug Administration viewed state litigation as complementary to its regulations." David Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said that "the ruling represents 'a real body blow to the Bush administration's efforts to change tort law through implied pre-emption.'"
Congress should extend protections to patients harmed by medical devices, paper says. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (3/9) editorialized, "Americans who are injured by prescription drugs won an important protection last week: the right to sue for damages in state courts." The Dispatch said, "Tragically, last year the Supreme Court failed to extend the same protection to patients injured by defective medical devices such as replacement hip and knee joints." Concluding, the Dispatch wrote, "It's not realistic to expect the FDA, with a few hundred employees monitoring more than 11,000 drugs and medical devices, to be able to spot every safety problem before a product gets to market" and that "Congress should give people harmed by defective devices the same protections the Court has now given those harmed by dangerous drugs."

Supreme Court's Wyeth ruling "a major setback" for drug industry.

In a story that received coverage from many news sources, the New York Times (3/5, A1, Liptak) reports on its front page, "In a major setback for business groups that had hoped to build a barrier against injury lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators." The decision "could have significant implications beyond drug manufacturing" and "many companies have sought tighter federal regulation in recent years in part to shield themselves from litigation."
The Washington Post (3/5, A2, Barnes) reports, "The 6 to 3 vote in the court's most anticipated business decision of the term was a rejection of Bush administration policy and a major setback to pharmaceutical companies, which face thousands of lawsuits in state courts from patients who allege that drugs have harmed them."
The AP (3/5) reports, "The Supreme Court" upheld "a $6.7 million jury award to a musician who lost her arm to gangrene following an injection." The plaintiff, "Diana Levine of Vermont once played the guitar and piano professionally" and "her right arm was amputated after she was injected with Phenergan, an anti-nausea medicine made by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, using a method that brings rapid relief, but with grievous risks if improperly administered." There were many other outlets that covered the Wyeth ruling, including: BusinessWeek (3/5, Johnson), CBS News (3/5, Cohen), the San Francisco Chronicle (3/5, Egelko), the Wall Street Journal (3/5, Bravin), the Legal Times (3/5, Mauro) reports, the AP (3/5, Curran), the Legal Intelligencer (3/4, Passarella), the Los Angeles Times (3/5, Savage), Dow Jones Newswires (3/5, Anderson), USA Today (3/5, Biskupic, Appleby), UPI (3/4) ABC World News (3/4, story 9, 0:30, Gibson), CBS Evening News (3/4, story 4, 2:00, Couric) and NBC Nightly News (3/4, story 5, 2:05, Williams).
Drug industry may face more litigation after ruling. The Financial Times (3/5, Jack) reports, "Pharmaceutical companies face substantial extra litigation after the US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that safety warnings on their drugs approved by federal regulators did not protect them from lawsuits in individual states." The ruling "marks the failure of efforts by the industry to fight legal settlements by imposing federal pre-emption, an argument that had been supported by George W. Bush's administration."
Bloomberg News (3/4, Stohr) reported that now drugmakers can be sued "for failing to provide adequate safety warnings." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the opinion, "Congress did not intend FDA oversight to be the exclusive means of ensuring drug safety and effectiveness." The ruling "might help former users of Wyeth's Prempro and Premarin menopause drugs and consumers of AstraZeneca Plc's antipsychotic drug Seroquel." However, "the impact isn't clear for allegations that Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline Plc should have done more to warn that their anti-depressants might cause suicidal tendencies."
The Philadelphia Inquirer (3/5, Hill) reports that Sol Weiss, a Philadelphia plaintiffs' lawyer, said, "This doesn't mean you're going to win, but you get your day in court." He is "not involved in this case" but "he is hoping that the decision will revive his cases involving Pfizer Inc.'s antidepressant Zoloft and GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C.'s antianxiety agent Paxil." The Wall Street Journal (3/5, Johnson, Mundy, Bravin) also covers the story.
Ruling may make drugmakers more cautious, halt development. The AP (3/5) reports that the ruling "could make drugmakers more cautious about safety issues and may lead them to halt development of some medicines and even pull others off the market." Erik Gordon, an analyst and professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, said, "'They will weigh how prevalent the side effect is, how serious the side effect is, versus the number of people benefiting from the drug and the amount of money being made by the drug."
Ruling seen as contradictory to medical device case. The New York Times (3/5, B1, Meier, Singer) reports on the front page of its Business Day section that the "result of a decision Wednesday by the Supreme Court" was that "federal law does not protect drug companies from product liability suits in state courts." However, "in contrast, the Supreme Court ruled last year that federal law does bar such lawsuits against the makers of heart stents, artificial joints and other critical medical devices." David C. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said, "I think this is going to force Congress to revisit the issue of why medical devices should be insulated from lawsuits."
Wyeth loss seen as possible victory in disguise. Forbes (3/5, Fisher) reports, "Wyeth's loss dashes the hopes of those who support pre-emption as a tactic for cutting back on excessive jury awards in product-liability cases, which the court affirmed last year in Riegel v. Medtronic." However, "Wyeth v. Levine may be a victory in disguise. By stepping back from the brink and refusing to give drug companies federal immunity from suits under state laws, the court has likely prevented an even more toxic response from the Democrat-controlled Congress."
Papers weigh in on Wyeth ruling. The Wall Street Journal (3/5) editorializes, "The decision is a huge victory for plaintiffs lawyers, but it's a much bigger defeat for drug innovation and public health." The Journal adds, "Yesterday's ruling will expose drug companies to a kind of double innovation jeopardy." Concluding, the Journal argues that now drug companies "will have to contemplate paying up front -- and paying later, even if the tragic mistake in applying the drug is someone else's. Wyeth is a dream come true for the plaintiffs bar."
In stark contrast, the New York Times (3/5) editorializes, "The Supreme Court made a wise and surprising decision on Wednesday when it rejected a drug company's claim that it cannot be sued for damages in state courts if a product and its label have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration." The ruling "demolished the notion that federal regulatory rulings automatically pre-empt the states from enforcing even tougher standards on drugs" and "also exposed as a sham the Bush administration's strenuous efforts to protect its allies in industry with phony pre-emption claims." The Times concludes, "We hope this decision will put the brakes on efforts to stifle damage suits in other areas as well."
Wyeth decision seen as not enough to end Michigan's drug law. In an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press (3/5) Henry Greenspan, who teaches about the FDA, ethics and policy at the University of Michigan, writes, "Today was a good one for justice in America – but we in Michigan remain saddled with a law that is based on precisely the argument the high court rejected." He adds that the court's decision in Wyeth "is not enough to end Michigan's statute." Greenspan concludes, "The state senators who have blocked repeal will now have to argue that they know better than two-thirds of the Supreme Court" and "they will have to explain why they maintain a view of the FDA that the court called 'meritless' and 'untenable.'"

Democrats introduce legislation to reverse Supreme Court ruling on medical device lawsuits.

The AP (3/6, Perrone) reports that one "day after the Supreme Court decided that federal rules do not protect drugmakers from state lawsuits," Democratic lawmakers "reintroduced a bill that would allow similar lawsuits against companies that make heart devices, catheters, hip replacements and other devices." In 2008, "the Supreme Court agreed with the pre-emption policy in a case [Riegel v. Medtronic] involving medical devices, ruling a patient injured by a catheter from Medtronic could not sue under state laws. That case turned on a provision of federal law prohibiting states from imposing their own requirements on the devices," but "there's no similar provision for drugs." Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) "and other Democrats said...that decision ignored decades of precedent." The AP adds that "the bill to restore liability claims against device makers is co-sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)," who "is expected to hold hearings on the issue in coming weeks."
The Wall Street Journal (3/5) Health Blog reports that "the proposed legislation was long expected, even more so after the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday seemed to create different rules for drug and device manufacturers." But, "the question now is whether the bills have enough votes to pass. Similar legislation failed last year, although it may have better odds now as a result of the Democrats' election gains." Dow Jones Newswires (3/6, Favole) also covers the story.