boutons_deux
06-25-2013, 05:39 AM
Generic Drug Companies Get Even More Immunity From The Roberts Five (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2206411/generic-drug-companies-get-even-more-immunity-from-the-roberts-five/)
Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling immunizing drug companies from lawsuit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-142_8njq.pdf) for egregious injuries wasn’t terribly surprising for those who have been following along. Two years ago, in a case called PLIVA v. Mensing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that generic drug companies were largely immune from lawsuits alleging their failure to warn of harmful consequences. On Monday, in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, the court extended this holding to apply to other types of claims against generic drug manufacturers, and held that a federal statute precluded suit by a woman who incurred burns on 60 percent of her body (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-court-generics-idUSBRE95N0RC20130624) and was rendered legally blind by an alleged drug defect.
This ruling was a predictable addition to the line of cases immunizing big business from liability, but it was not an inevitable follow-up to PLIVA
As has been a frequent practice by the Roberts Court (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/04/27/176997/scotus-nukes-consumers/), the five-justice majority found that federal law trumped state law protecting patients, over protestations from the four dissenting justices that both federal and state law could co-exist. Interpreting a federal law requirement that generic drug companies simply follow the warnings and design of the brand name drug, the court held that generic companies cannot be held liable for its flaws. This means that a generic company that distributes a dangerous product has no obligation to simply stop selling that drug, and can go on dispensing the potentially dangerous substance with immunity. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, the court justified its holding through “an implicit and undefended assumption that federal law gives pharmaceutical companies a right to sell a federally approved drug free from common-law liability.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2206411/generic-drug-companies-get-even-more-immunity-from-the-roberts-five/
yawn, VRWC SCOTUS political hacks protect/enrich Corporate-Americans over and against Human-Americans.
Avoid ALL BigPharma shit. All of it has side effects, and almost all of it is ineffective and "supported" by BigPharma's own research and studies where negative results are suppressed, hidden.
Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling immunizing drug companies from lawsuit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-142_8njq.pdf) for egregious injuries wasn’t terribly surprising for those who have been following along. Two years ago, in a case called PLIVA v. Mensing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that generic drug companies were largely immune from lawsuits alleging their failure to warn of harmful consequences. On Monday, in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, the court extended this holding to apply to other types of claims against generic drug manufacturers, and held that a federal statute precluded suit by a woman who incurred burns on 60 percent of her body (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-court-generics-idUSBRE95N0RC20130624) and was rendered legally blind by an alleged drug defect.
This ruling was a predictable addition to the line of cases immunizing big business from liability, but it was not an inevitable follow-up to PLIVA
As has been a frequent practice by the Roberts Court (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/04/27/176997/scotus-nukes-consumers/), the five-justice majority found that federal law trumped state law protecting patients, over protestations from the four dissenting justices that both federal and state law could co-exist. Interpreting a federal law requirement that generic drug companies simply follow the warnings and design of the brand name drug, the court held that generic companies cannot be held liable for its flaws. This means that a generic company that distributes a dangerous product has no obligation to simply stop selling that drug, and can go on dispensing the potentially dangerous substance with immunity. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, the court justified its holding through “an implicit and undefended assumption that federal law gives pharmaceutical companies a right to sell a federally approved drug free from common-law liability.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2206411/generic-drug-companies-get-even-more-immunity-from-the-roberts-five/
yawn, VRWC SCOTUS political hacks protect/enrich Corporate-Americans over and against Human-Americans.
Avoid ALL BigPharma shit. All of it has side effects, and almost all of it is ineffective and "supported" by BigPharma's own research and studies where negative results are suppressed, hidden.