Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

Posted by   + Show Post

July 7, 2013

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

 July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

Drug companies failed to warn patients that toxic epidermal necrolysis was a side effect. But the Supreme Court ruled they're still not liable for damages.


In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.



Karen Bartlett vs. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company

In 2004, Karen Bartlett was prescribed the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical, for her sore shoulder. Three weeks after taking the drug, Bartlett began suffering from a disease called, ‘toxic epidermal necrolysis’. The condition is extremely painful and causes the victim’s skin to peel off, exposing raw flesh in the same manner as a third degree burn victim.

Karen Bartlett sued Mutual Pharma in New Hampshire state court, arguing that the drug company included no warning about the possible side effect. A court agreed and awarded her $21 million. The FDA went on to force both Mutual, as well as the original drug manufacturer Merck & Co., to include the side effect on the two drugs’ warning labels going forward.

Now, nine years after the tragedy began, the US Supreme Court overturned the state court’s verdict and award. Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs. In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.

Court ruling

The Court’s ruling a week ago on behalf of generic drug makers is actually a continuation of a ruling made by the same Court in 2011. At that time, the Justices ruled that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects. If the generic versions of the drugs are made from the exact same formula and labeled with the exact same warnings as their brand name counterparts, the generics and their manufacturers were not liable.

The Court ruled, “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce."

And that ruling flies in the face of both common sense and justice. And as Karen Bartlett can now attest, it leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from the deadly and torturous side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. As a reminder, the number one cause of preventable or accidental death in the US is pharmaceutical drugs.


Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, both drug manufacturers and Wall Street investors were celebrating. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.

One industry critic was quoted by Reuters after the verdict. "Today's court decision provides a disincentive for generic makers of drugs to monitor safety of their products and to make sure that they have a surveillance system in place to detect adverse events that pose a threat to patients," Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group told the news outlet.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was quick to react to the ruling by writing a stern letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, "A consumer should not have her rights foreclosed simply because she takes the generic version of a prescription drug.”

But an attorney for the drug companies, Jay P. Lefkowitz, took the opposing position saying, “It makes much more sense to rely on the judgments of the scientific and medical experts at the FDA, who look at drug issues for the nation at large, than those of a single state court jury that only has in front of it the terribly unfortunate circumstances of an adverse drug reaction."

In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives. That result leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from an industry responsible for more preventable deaths in the US than any other cause.

 http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/usa-court-generics-idUSL2N0F00K820130624

by on Jul. 8, 2013 at 2:16 AM
Replies (51-54):
Aestas
by Gold Member on Jul. 9, 2013 at 4:47 AM

It's not blame, it's accountability. Big difference.

Quoting LaughCryLive:

I guess I just don't get the blame mentality.


Quoting Aestas:

Right, I'm not saying the drug is dangerous for most people, just that the drug companies should be liable for the safety of their products. If you are the one person whose life is completely destroyed by the drug (or who loses a loved one to the drug's side effects), how are you going to pay for that? What is your life worth?

The $21 million she was initially awarded does not make up for the fact that her life is destroyed and she lives in constant pain, but it can at least pay for her medical bills and her care and make up for lost wages. That amount of money is nothing for a big drug company, but for her, it's the difference between life and death. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

If I sell you an undercooked chicken sandwich, and you get salmonella and miscarry as a result, I'm liable for that loss. Why should they be any different?

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Jul. 9, 2013 at 7:11 AM

This is another sucky decision that favors corporations instead of citizens.

Ugh.

Koltie6
by Bronze Member on Jul. 9, 2013 at 8:02 AM
My son was in the hospital 10 days the bill to the insurance co was 30,000. We paid cash and it was 7000.00. That was 7 years ago. We now only use alternative docs and haven't been sick a day since. We put the insurance premium in a savings account instead. Our medical system is great for broken backs and emergency medicine. It is worthless for prevention.


Quoting Aestas:

How do you figure? I broke my back about ten years ago. That whole ordeal would have cost me $10k+ out of pocket if I hadn't had insurance at the time.

I'm currently pregnant with my second child. I am giving birth at a birthing center with a midwife, naturally with no drugs. I get acupunture treatments to help me with any issues that arise (morning sickness, pain, etc.). How would I pay for any of this without insurance?

Quoting Koltie6:

Wouldn't need insurance if we ate clean avoided Rx drugs etc.



rfurlongg
by on Jul. 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM
I hope at some pt this is reversed. What a sad day.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)