Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vaccine Manufacturers Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vaccine Manufacturers

NEXT :
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member or subscriber? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

HEALTH

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vaccine Manufacturers

SCOTUS makes it more difficult to sue manufacturers in autism cases.

The Supreme Court today ruled that vaccine companies cannot be sued for design defects, handing the pharmaceutical industry a victory and making it more difficult to bring cases against vaccine manufacturers for allegedly causing autism.

A 1986 law established a federal system for compensating patients injured by "unavoidable" side effects after being given a vaccine. The law aimed to make collecting damages for children injured by vaccines easier and faster by giving the Health and Human Services Department the authority to hear the cases and hand out compensation, funded by an excise tax on pharmaceutical companies making vaccines. President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget estimated the vaccine fund would have $3 billion. The fund has paid out over $2.5 billion since its inception.

 

A ruling that allowed suits against the vaccine producers for a "design defect" might have opened up the pharmaceutical industry to thousands of cases alleging that vaccines caused autism in children.

The case heard by the Supreme Court, brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, alleged that their daughter Hannah was disabled by a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine she received as an infant in 1992 manufactured by Lederle Laboratories, now owned by Pfizer Inc.’s Wyeth unit. After the family was denied compensation in the federal vaccine court in 1995, they filed the suit that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, charging that the defective design of the vaccine caused their daughter’s disabilities and that the company could be held liable for negligent design under Pennsylvania law.

The court ruled 6-2 to uphold the ruling of the 3rd Circuit appellate court, finding that the federal law preempts all “design-defect claims” made against vaccine manufacturers. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the statute only holds manufacturers liable for proper manufacturing and labeling, not for the actual design of the drug.

 

“Provided that there was proper manufacture and warning, any remaining side effects, including those resulting from design defects, are deemed to have been unavoidable. State-law design-defect claims are therefore preempted,” wrote Scalia.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the decision creates a "regulatory vacuum" where vaccine manufacturers are not required to “adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products." Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had worked on the case for the Justice Department.

Pfizer Executive Vice President and General Counsel Amy Schulman welcomed the decision.

“The Vaccine Act that Congress enacted nearly 25 years ago appropriately places the responsibility for determining the optimal design of life-saving childhood vaccines in the hands of expert federal agencies, not a patchwork of state tort systems,” said Schulman. “We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the 3rd Circuit.”

 

But Valerie Nannery, a litigation counsel at the Center for Constitutional Litigation, said the decision holds vaccine makers to a lesser standard for accountability.

“We are disappointed because the tort system is there to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for vaccine design,” said Nannery. “Now these companies don’t have to defend themselves in court for drug design.”

The Supreme Court today ruled companies producing vaccines cannot be sued for design defects, handing the pharmaceutical industry a victory and making it more difficult for cases suing vaccine companies for allegedly causing autism to proceed.

A 1986 law established a federal system for compensating patients injured by “unavoidable” side effects after being given a vaccine. The law aimed to stabilize the vaccine market and make collecting damages from children injured by vaccines easier and fast by giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to hear the cases and hand out compensation, funded by an excise tax on pharmaceutical companies making vaccines. The president’s fiscal 2012 budget estimated the vaccine fund would have $3 billion. The fund has paid out over $2.5 billion since it first started in 1986.

The case, brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, challenged that their daughter Hannah was disabled by a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine she received as an infant in 1992 manufactured by Lederle Laboratories, now owned by Pfizer Inc.’s Wyeth unit.

In April 1995, the Bruseswitz family filed a vaccine injury petition in the federal vaccine court, but an administrator denied their claims. The family then filed the suit the ultimately reached the Supreme Court, charging that the defective design of the vaccine caused their daughter’s disabilities, and that the company could be held responsible for liability for negligent design under Pennsylvania law.

The court ruled 6-2 to uphold the ruling of appellate courts, finding that the federal law preempts all “design-defect claims” made against vaccine manufacturers. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the statute only holds manufacturers liable for proper manufacturing and labeling, but not the actual design of the drug.

Provided that there was proper manufacture and warning, any remaining side effects, including those resulting from design defects, are deemed to have been unavoidable. State-law design-defect claims are therefore preempted,” wrote Scalia.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruther Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the decision created a “regulatory vacuum,” where vaccine manufacturers are not  required to “adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.”

Pfizer Executive Vice President and General Counsel Amy Schulman welcomed the decision.

“The Vaccine Act that Congress enacted nearly 25 years ago appropriately places the responsibility for determining the optimal design of life-saving childhood vaccines in the hands of expert federal agencies, not a patchwork of state tort systems,” said Schulman. “We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Third Circuit.”

But Valerie Nannery, a litigation counsel at the Center for Constitutional Litigation, said the decision means vaccine makers can’t be held accountable for making the best drugs possible.

“We are disappointed because the tort system is there to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for vaccine design,” said Nannery. “Now these companies don’t have to defend themselves in court for drug design.”

This article appears in the February 22, 2011 edition of National Journal Daily PM Update.

Comments
comments powered by Disqus
 
MORE NATIONAL JOURNAL
 
 
 
 
What should you expect from on Election Night?
See more ▲
 
Hide