ARTICLE - Preemption & Tort Litigation

ARTICLE - Preemption & Tort Litigation - Journal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Journal: Pre-emption and Tort Litigation Due: October 6 th , 2008, Monday The below links are to articles in the New York Times on a related topic. Both describe the facts of a tort lawsuit brought by an injured person against a drug manufacturer. The lawsuits were brought under state tort law. The defendants both argue that federal law which regulates the labeling requirements for drugs pre- empts state law. This means that if the drug manufacturer complies with the labeling law, the drug manufacturer cannot be held liable under state law. Q: As a society, do we need more or less federal regulation? Q: Should there be one standard of care--that defined by federal law? Q: Why does business like the idea of federal pre-emption? Q: How does state tort law serve as a method of regulation of business? Q: Is it good or bad to eliminate this level of regulation? Q: How do you think the Supreme Court should decide and why? These questions are posed to provoke thought. With the exception of the last question, you do not necessarily have to explicitly address each question. This journal entry will be due in class on Monday, October 6, 2008.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Journal: Pre-emption and Tort Litigation Due: October 6 th , 2008, Monday ARTICLE #1 : ***************************************************************************** * Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield By GARDINER HARRIS and ALEX BERENSON Published: April 6, 2008 For years, obscured evidence that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes, according to internal company documents Tom Uhlman for The New York Times An Ortho Evra birth control patch from Johnson & Johnson. Related Times Topics: Food and Drug Administration Times Topics: Supreme Court, U.S. But because the Food and Drug Administration approved the patch, the company is arguing in court that it cannot be sued by women who claim that they were injured by the product — even though its old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen it released. This legal argument is called pre-emption. After decades of being dismissed by courts, the tactic now appears to be on the verge of success, lawyers for plaintiffs and drug companies say. The Bush administration has argued strongly in favor of the doctrine, which holds that the F.D.A. is the only agency with enough expertise to regulate drug makers and that its decisions should not be second-guessed by courts. The Supreme Court is to rule on a case next term that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases. The court already ruled in February that many suits against the makers of medical devices like pacemakers are pre-empted. More than 3,000 women and their families have sued Johnson & Johnson, asserting that
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

ARTICLE - Preemption & Tort Litigation - Journal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online