Print Page | Close Window

Supreme Court Exempts Drug Companies from Lawsuits

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=368890
Printed Date: Oct 21 2017 at 3:32pm


Topic: Supreme Court Exempts Drug Companies from Lawsuits
Posted By: ragincajin
Subject: Supreme Court Exempts Drug Companies from Lawsuits
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:22pm
The FDA will fail us. It'll be just like USDA meat recalls. Recalls happen weeks, if not months, after bad product has been in circulation- long after damage is done. Get ready.


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.


http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Supreme Court Exempts Drug Companies from Lawsuits



Replies:
Posted By: Bored w/Out Me?
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:27pm
I wonder how many billion that ruling was bought for


Posted By: trudawg
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:32pm
It'll take years to undue the damage this Lochner era-esque conservative court is doing.


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:41pm
Originally posted by trudawg trudawg wrote:

It'll take years to undue the damage this Lochner era-esque conservative court is doing.

It's too late Tru. It'll never be undone. Far too much money in just a few hands. Legislators are bought and sold, bagged and tagged from jump street. They can't win without the money, and the money, at least for now, can't get what they want without them.
The SC isn't much better even though they are appointed for life so as to be removed from, and unaffected by, public opinion. This current SC band of bandits is akin to the racist villains who brought us Plessy v. Ferguson. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that yt folk do in their own interests surprises me anymore.


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by Bored w/Out Me? Bored w/Out Me? wrote:

I wonder how many billion that ruling was bought for

Excellent question. Look to K Street for the answer to that one! Of course you'll then want to dig a hole to hide yourself from the answer.


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:48pm
I think it depends on whether they knew. The thing is no one really knows how bad these products and drugs are until they are released on a wide scale and used for some time. In the example in the OP they knew but they don't always know until the complaints start rolling in imo. There was a brand of tampon called Rely that was intended to be used for a whole period without being replaced. On a smaller scale during testing the small number of women probably didn't have any problems but only once millions of women started using it did patterns emerge and they realized it can cause major issues. This only happens sometimes but not usually so they can't really expect the drug makers to predict this if they do not see it during clinical trials.  But this is just my opinion because I'm not a doctor or associated with the legal or the medical field.


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 10:54pm
People have to keep in mind that medical progress is made largely in part by things going wrong. All the warnings on your products? They know because it's happened to someone before. I think a lot of people were suing for stuff that the drug makers couldn't really forsee and I think that can stall medical progress as well. 

But of course I don't think companies who intentionally hide the truth should be protected.Two totally different situations.


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:03pm
Originally posted by liesnalibis liesnalibis wrote:

People have to keep in mind that medical progress is made largely in part by things going wrong. All the warnings on your products? They know because it's happened to someone before. I think a lot of people were suing for stuff that the drug makers couldn't really forsee and I think that can stall medical progress as well. 

But of course I don't think companies who intentionally hide the truth should be protected.Two totally different situations.


LOL! I smile when I read your post. You are just the kind of rational, thinking person that Big Pharma jury consultants love to choose.
Of course what you'll never be told by BP is that they've tested their drugs on thousands of people, not just the published results from US clinical trails.
LOL! They make billions. The payback is their own paranoia because they know just what they've done.

Here's an example:
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/big-pharma-continues-drug-experiments-in-under-developed-nations-for-profit/" rel="nofollow - Big Pharma and Drug Experiments in Under-developed Countries


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:20pm
I know they do some awful and unethical things but what I'm basically saying is that for them to learn something is dangerous someone has to suffer. Hopefully not unsuspecting Nigerian children but if not them someone else would have been the first. I'm not saying what they did was okay and I don't believe in targeting the poor or uneducated for these studies but I'm just saying in a nutshell that the reason we know which berries are safe and which ones are poisonous is because the first people who ate them got sick or died. So when someone chooses to put some newly released medication into their body hoping it will help them they can't always demonize the pharmaceutical companies if they didn't know either. But if they are intentionally doing wrong and releasing things they know not to be safe, they should 100% be held responsible.


Posted By: trudawg
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:21pm
Originally posted by ragincajin ragincajin wrote:

Originally posted by liesnalibis liesnalibis wrote:

People have to keep in mind that medical progress is made largely in part by things going wrong. All the warnings on your products? They know because it's happened to someone before. I think a lot of people were suing for stuff that the drug makers couldn't really forsee and I think that can stall medical progress as well. 

But of course I don't think companies who intentionally hide the truth should be protected.Two totally different situations.


LOL! I smile when I read your post. You are just the kind of rational, thinking person that Big Pharma jury consultants love to choose.
Of course what you'll never be told by BP is that they've tested their drugs on thousands of people, not just the published results from US clinical trails.
LOL! They make billions. The payback is their own paranoia because they know just what they've done.

Here's an example:
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/big-pharma-continues-drug-experiments-in-under-developed-nations-for-profit/" rel="nofollow - Big Pharma and Drug Experiments in Under-developed Countries


Exactly. They know about the side effects and dangers well before they hit the market. They do a cost benefit analysis and determine the profit margins will outweigh the harm done or lives lost long before someone suffers from flesh eating side effects.


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:21pm
^^^^If that is the case then I guess they planned to be sued and decided it was worth it? Is that what you're saying? Interesting.


Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:29pm
i'm kind of proud of myself for remembering Lochner v. NY. LOL

such an odd & scary judgment for a nation so dependent on drugs.  #marijuananeverhurtanybody.


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:36pm
Originally posted by trudawg trudawg wrote:

Exactly. They know about the side effects and dangers well before they hit the market. They do a cost benefit analysis and determine the profit margins will outweigh the harm done or lives lost long before someone suffers from flesh eating side effects.


You said it! Well planned in advance. They plan for X amount of hundreds of millions and out of that, they know they'll have to pay plaintiff's attorneys Y amount of money. They ALWAYS win. Like casinos. They take in way more than they give out. Evil game.


Posted By: trudawg
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:37pm
Originally posted by liesnalibis liesnalibis wrote:

^^^^If that is the case then I guess they planned to be sued and decided it was worth it? Is that what you're saying? Interesting.


Hells yea! This conservative SC already put a cap on punitive damages, stating it's violation of due process, so profits will likely proceed any judgment against them.

Aw sh*t, look at Ms_wonder with her caselaw and cites down packedWink


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 01 2014 at 11:37pm
Originally posted by ms_wonderland ms_wonderland wrote:

i'm kind of proud of myself for remembering Lochner v. NY. LOL

such an odd & scary judgment for a nation so dependent on drugs.  #marijuananeverhurtanybody.


You go girl!!

ETA: On the case law that is!
Can't judge on the maryjane Smoke isn't good for asthmatics!!


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 11:35am
i found this curious so i looked it up. this ruling applies to generic drug makers. the drug makers of the brand name can still be liable for lawsuits. 

i am on the fence about this. because it's a double edged sword. i think that differentiating the brand name and the generic by saying the generic is harmful but not necessarily the brand name could be used a pretense to keep generic drugs off the market. that's far worse IMO.


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 11:50am
i'm confused.  melikey i thought your research (i didn't do any myself lol) showed that brand name drugs can STILL be sued and held liable.  seems like that would make them (brand name) potentially more expensive...not the other way around.


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 11:51am
Originally posted by ThoughtCouture ThoughtCouture wrote:

i'm confused.  melikey i thought your research (i didn't do any myself lol) showed that brand name drugs can be sued.  seems like that would make them (brand name) potentially more expensive...not the other way around.

brand name prices should stay the same as this is the status quo. the problem is that if they knock out the generic competition through lawsuits by saying the generic isn't as good or as safe consumers will be stuck with paying brand name drug prices indefinitely because there is no competition. 


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 12:03pm
but the brand names can STILL be sued and held liable after this verdict, right?   => more costs => higher prices. 
 
generic brands would have cheaper cost if they cannot be sued and/or held liable.


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 12:06pm

or are you saying that consumers will ultimately eventually select the brand name (regardless of price) over generic for added protection of being able to sue them (the brand name)?



Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 12:11pm
brand names can still be sued. i don't think it will make prices any higher because they've already been able to be sued and will continue to be sued. prices are high as high can be at the moment and the only way to stop the momentum is improving the competition by getting generics to the market. 

i think that if generics can be sued for not being safe whereas the brand name is untouched, they will be sued out of existence, and consumers will have no choice but to use the brand name and pay the higher prices. 

it is perhaps a blind spot in the law, the patient in the case against the generic should be allowed to sue the brand name for inventing the drug directly without suing the generic, because all the generic is doing is making a copy. it seems like in this case the generic was sued because that's the drug the patient actually took. this is what the supreme court struck down. 


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by melikey melikey wrote:

brand names can still be sued. i don't think it will make prices any higher because they've already been able to be sued and will continue to be sued. prices are high as high can be at the moment and the only way to stop the momentum is improving the competition by getting generics to the market. 
 
yes but this finding by the highest court in the land is pretty final.  so the number of suits may rise since the supreme court has spoken.
Originally posted by melikey melikey wrote:

i think that if generics can be sued for not being safe whereas the brand name is untouched, they will be sued out of existence, and consumers will have no choice but to use the brand name and pay the higher prices. 
 
i'm confused, i thought according to this finding...the generic brand could NOT be sued/held liable for being unsafe.  is there some kind of distinction/circle talk set forth in this finding???  like some different weirdo definition of "unsafe"??? 
 
but even if it was...why would the brand name not be open to being sued for being "not" safe as well???   did this finding imply that they (brand names) would be untouchable with regard to safety...that seems ridiculous...since the finding says they (brand names) are the ones that can actually continue to be sued and found liable in the first place not generic...wtf...lol?

 


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 12:42pm

no i think you got it, the original article is missing a lot of info. the supreme court overturned a state court's decision because it contradicted federal law. so yes, the federal law said one thing and the state law said another and the supreme court upheld federal law. 
i was just making an argument for why i think the federal law is important from a consumer's perspective in keeping competition on the market. 

Originally posted by ThoughtCouture ThoughtCouture wrote:


 
i'm confused, i thought according to this finding...the generic brand could NOT be sued/held liable for being unsafe. 
is there some kind of distinction/circle talk set forth in this finding???  like some different weirdo definition of "unsafe"??? correct, this is the case now that the supreme court ruled on it. the problem is that there was a state law on the books that contradicted federal law. this is what the supreme court overruled. 
 
but even if it was...why would the brand name not be open to being sued for being "not" safe as well???   did this finding imply that they (brand names) would be untouchable with regard to safety...that seems ridiculous...since the finding says they (brand names) are the ones that can actually continue to be sued and found liable in the first place not generic...wtf...lol?

I think the issue was with the law for that state, the patient sued the company that made the drug they were taking, most insurance companies don't pay for brand name drugs once there is a cheaper alternative so by some sick twist of fate it would turn out, in that state, that the generic would be more vulnerable to lawsuits because that's what the patients are using. 

a generic has to be identical to the brand name down to the labeling, this is the federal law, that's why the supreme court ruled that you can't just skip and sue the generic for making a copy you have to sue the brand name. 

 


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by melikey melikey wrote:


 
I think the issue was with the law for that state, the patient sued the company that made the drug they were taking, most insurance companies don't pay for brand name drugs once there is a cheaper alternative so by some sick twist of fate it would turn out, in that state, that the generic would be more vulnerable to lawsuits because that's what the patients are using. 

a generic has to be identical to the brand name down to the labeling, this is the federal law, that's why the supreme court ruled that you can't just skip and sue the generic for making a copy you have to sue the brand name. 
 
ahhhhh ok this is as it should be imo.  i guess i am still having difficulty connecting the dots as to how this could result in generic being somehow driven out of business...but admittedly i'm still lounging around today so i'm not really on top of it...lol 


Posted By: trudawg
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 1:10pm
okay people, stop interpreting and start reading. Below you'll find the background, holding and the eleven (11) headnotes from the SC's ruling which are now settled law. The ruling covers different areas of law which are denoted by the headnote title. This is straight from Westlaw and is worth about $95 of my time, lol.


Background: Patient who sustained significant injuries as result of her use of inflammatory pain reliever manufactured by defendant brought state court action to recover for her injuries, which was subsequently removed to federal court. All but patient's design defect claims were either dismissed voluntarily by patient or on summary judgment by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Joseph N. Laplante, J., 731 F.Supp.2d 135 and 2010 WL 3659789. After jury awarded patient $21.06 million in compensatory damages on design defect claim, manufacturer moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The District Court, Laplante, J., 760 F.Supp.2d 220, denied motions, and manufacturer appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Boudin, Circuit Judge, 678 F.3d 30, affirmed. Certiorari was granted.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Justice Alito, held that design defect claim under New Hampshire law, based on generic drug manufacturer's failure to strengthen warnings on inflammatory pain reliever's label to advise of risks of toxic epidermal necrosis and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and to ensure that pain reliever was not “unreasonably dangerous” to users, was preempted by federal law that expressly prohibited manufacturers of generic drugs from making any unilateral changes to drug's label.
Reversed.
Justice Breyer dissented and filed opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
Justice Sotomayor dissented and filed opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.


Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013)


https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B12030847318" rel="nofollow - 1
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - States
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360k18.5/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Conflicting or conforming laws or regulations
State laws that conflict with federal law are without effect. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOARTVICL2&originatingDoc=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2 .
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360k18.5/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Conflicting or conforming laws or regulations
Even in absence of express preemption provision, state law is impliedly preempted by federal law where it is impossible for private party to comply with both state and federal requirements. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOARTVICL2&originatingDoc=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2 .

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B32030847318" rel="nofollow - 3 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak132/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Warnings or Instructions
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360k18.65/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Product safety;  food and drug laws
Design defect claim under New Hampshire law, based on generic drug manufacturer's failure to strengthen warnings on inflammatory pain reliever's label to advise of risks of toxic epidermal necrosis and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and to ensure that pain reliever was not “unreasonably dangerous” to users, was preempted by federal law that expressly prohibited manufacturers of generic drugs from making any unilateral changes to drug's label; mere fact that manufacturer could escape impossibility of complying with both its federal and state law duties by choosing not to manufacture drug at all did not alter fact that state law design defect claim was conflict preempted, because it was impossible to comply with both laws. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOARTVICL2&originatingDoc=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2 ; https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=21CFRS314.94&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_d85f00002bdc6" rel="nofollow - 21

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B42030847318" rel="nofollow - 4
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak111/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Nature and elements in general
Under New Hampshire law, one who sells any product in defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm caused by product, even though he has exercised all possible care in preparation and sale of product. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0290694188&pubNum=0101577&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A .

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B52030847318" rel="nofollow - 5
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak113/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Strict liability
While New Hampshire has adopted a strict products liability regime, in which liability does not depend on negligence, but still signals the breach of a duty, it has not adopted an absolute liability regime, in which liability does not reflect breach of any duties at all, but merely serves to spread risk. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0290694188&pubNum=0101577&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A .

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B62030847318" rel="nofollow - 6
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak118/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Nature of Product and Existence of Defect or Danger
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak132/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Warnings or Instructions
New Hampshire law requires manufacturers to ensure that products which they design, manufacture, and sell are not unreasonably dangerous.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731800620130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B72030847318" rel="nofollow - 7 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak126/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Design
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak132/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Warnings or Instructions
Drug manufacturer's obligation under New Hampshire law to ensure that drugs that it designs, manufactures, and sells are not unreasonably dangerous may be satisfied either by changing a drug's design or by changing its labeling.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731800720130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B82030847318" rel="nofollow - 8 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak129/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Risk-utility test
To determine whether product is “unreasonably dangerous,” New Hampshire courts employ a risk-utility approach, under which product is defective as designed if magnitude of danger outweighs utility of product.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731800820130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B92030847318" rel="nofollow - 9 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak118/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Nature of Product and Existence of Defect or Danger
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak129/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Risk-utility test
Risk-utility approach utilized by New Hampshire courts to determine whether product is “unreasonably dangerous” requires a multifaceted balancing process involving evaluation of many conflicting factors.

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B102030847318" rel="nofollow - 10 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak118/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Nature of Product and Existence of Defect or Danger
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak129/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Risk-utility test
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313A/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Products Liability
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/313Ak132/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Warnings or Instructions
Under New Hampshire law, three factors germane to risk-utility inquiry employed to determine whether product is “unreasonably dangerous” are: usefulness and desirability of product to public as whole; whether risk of danger could have been reduced without significantly affecting either product's effectiveness or manufacturing cost; and presence and efficacy of warning to avoid unreasonable risk of harm from hidden dangers or from foreseeable uses.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731801020130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051e00000144842c27a89d25468a%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIe3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=5ef968a72f1fb2eeb01f8e0b720d0d97&list=ALL&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=a6d715f2e74738a084bc460f214eb287&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_anchor_B112030847318" rel="nofollow - 11 https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - States
Display Key Number Topics
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/360k18.5/View.html?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - Conflicting or conforming laws or regulations
When federal law forbids an action that state law requires, state law is preempted. https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOARTVICL2&originatingDoc=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2 .
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731801120130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -


Posted By: trudawg
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by ThoughtCouture ThoughtCouture wrote:

i don't want to read all that right now...lol  maybe later...Embarrassed


It looks daunting, I know, however it's really not that much. The background is the longest part. LOL


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 1:26pm
i don't want to read all that right now...lol  maybe later...Embarrassed


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by trudawg trudawg wrote:

okay people, stop interpreting and start reading. Below you'll find the background, holding and the eleven (11) headnotes from the SC's ruling which are now settled law. The ruling covers different areas of law which are denoted by the headnote title. This is straight from Westlaw and is worth about $95 of my time, lol.


Ah Tru, you have a sense of humor!
Without going into the complexities, just consider this: Between the drug manufacturers, the FDA, your doc and your insurance company, if you are damaged, what will you do?
Regular folk should consider this:
The next time you go see your doctor and need a prescription, if you are given a paper script, vs. having your script sent directly to your pharmacy, take a good look at it.
Notice the dispense as written box. We’ve all seen this.
Now consider your insurance company. Ins companies more often than not, require generics over brand. Cost. Plain and simple. Generics are cheaper.
Your doc would have to prove that you need brand over generic in order for your ins com to pony up the dough. How many docs do you know who'd be willing to take the time to do that? I know maybe one. Not too many. Remember, they have ins com contracts as well.
Your ins company will say, if you want brand, you can have it, but you will have to foot the bill yourself.
If you cannot afford to pay for brand, and your only option is generic, what happens if you’re damaged in some way? How will you be made whole? The answer, we now know, thanks to last July's ruling, is too bad. Remember this the next time you, your child, mom, dad, sibling, friend, cousin, neighbor, etc., needs a prescription filled.
I am waiting for the ins suits to come round the mountain eventually.


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 5:18pm
oh ok...so you can't sue the brand if you were prescribed the generic?  terrible...especially since it is the same exact formula...as required by the feds...


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by ThoughtCouture ThoughtCouture wrote:

oh ok...so you can't sue the brand if you were prescribed the generic?  terrible...especially since it is the same exact formula...as required by the feds...


You can't sue the generic manufacturer because the formula was previously approved by the Feds. For the people-all kinds of wrong and no recourse. For the manufacturers- chaching!


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by trudawg trudawg wrote:

Holding: The Supreme Court, Justice Alito, held that design defect claim under New Hampshire law, based on generic drug manufacturer's failure to strengthen warnings on inflammatory pain reliever's label to advise of risks of toxic epidermal necrosis and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and to ensure that pain reliever was not “unreasonably dangerous” to users, was preempted by federal law that expressly prohibited manufacturers of generic drugs from making any unilateral changes to drug's label.
Reversed.
Justice Breyer dissented and filed opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
Justice Sotomayor dissented and filed opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.


Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013)
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=Ie3165f07dcbd11e2a555d241dae65084&headnoteId=203084731801120130825080724&originationContext=document&docSource=069090529dad49369f2096f8d2896b17&rank=1&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" rel="nofollow -
 
interesting...so if i am reading this correctly the generic brand printed warnings on the label precisely as the brand name version has printed as required by fed law...and this is why the generic company is not being held liable?
 
so the root cause is, in fact, faulty labeling on the part of the brand name actually, correct?
 
but the patient can't sue the brand name directly because they took the generic brand which is a carbon copy down to the labeling as legally required by same said fed govt?????? 
 
this is some circular bullshyt for sure...


Posted By: ThoughtCouture
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 5:35pm
Originally posted by ragincajin ragincajin wrote:

Originally posted by ThoughtCouture ThoughtCouture wrote:

oh ok...so you can't sue the brand if you were prescribed the generic?  terrible...especially since it is the same exact formula...as required by the feds...


You can't sue the generic manufacturer because the formula was previously approved by the Feds. For the people-all kinds of wrong and no recourse. For the manufacturers- chaching!
 
yeah...they need to change that.  this is a glitch in the matrix. 


Posted By: Anah
Date Posted: Mar 02 2014 at 7:06pm
Oh sh*t. I just looked up epidermal necrolysis!!!

No lord. Why?Unhappy

This is horrible news.


Posted By: NARSAddict
Date Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 7:36am
sh*t no wonder polio hasn't been eradicated and why Boko Haram is acting an unadulterated fool in Nigeria.  And I suspect why polio is rife in Pakistan also.  Ugh to it all.


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Mar 06 2014 at 8:17am
It's to say America has fallen spirituality and the physically is about to go under.



Print Page | Close Window