Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

[madamesilverspurs]

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.

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.

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



Now where did I put that picture of the Supreme Court justices sporting their favorite corporate logos?!

[Warpy]

1. Here:

[RobertEarl]

2. Drug companies have inalienable rights, y'know

It's right there in the constitution. They have the right to fuck you up for profit.

It's in the general welfare clause.

Now, say good night, and praise Prostate Gamble.

[RC]

3. This one?

[roguevalley]

11. can we please call them nazis now?

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. ...

[burnodo]

5. And fascism digs in a little deeper

While Godwin's law is invoked to keep people from thinking about it

[elleng]

6. '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."'

[dmr]

17. elleng, is that from the OP's link?

Thanks for your post. It makes sense.

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.

[elleng]

18. Yes, its from the link.

[msongs]

7. 80 -20...where have I seen that bragged about recently? nt

[Baitball Blogger]

8. This one will be overturned in our lifetime.

[bluestate10]

9. Understand, there is little difference between democratic office holders and republican

office holders. Ignore the Missouri Governor, a democrat, doing a veto of crazy republican legislation. Ignore the Kentucky Governor, a democrat, putting a headlock on crazy assed republicans in the state legislature. There is no difference if you don't mind having the air you breathe poisoned, or the water you drink poisoned, or the medicine you take being an inordinate risk to your health or even your life. The fact is the composition of the Supreme Court is determined by the results of Presidential and Senatorial elections, there is no way that a rational person can argue with that premise. Anyone that swallows the mantra that there is little or no difference between democrats and republicans shouldn't be surprised when 5-4 rulings in favor of allowing drug companies to act negligently become 6-3 or even 8-2 rulings to give drug companies unchallenged latitude under laws massaged by a politically motivated, rightwing Supreme Court.

[Sgent]

10. Good decision

the drug company in this case had no control over the labeling on the drug, the prescribing information, or anything else. The wording was dictated to them by the FDA -- and they do not have standing to challenge that wording and remain a generic drug.

This lawsuit was not based on the idea that the drug company failed to deliver what was on the label, but rather that the label was incorrect. The problem is that the only person with the ability to change the label is either the original drug manufacturer through application or the FDA on its own initiative. The generic manufacturer has no ability otherwise.

[elleng]

13. Right, good explanation.

Most people don't get into the legal analyses, especially of decisions with which they disagree on the effect.

[RobertEarl]

14. That's so sweet

But.......... it was a 5-4 decision, and you can bet it was RW-5. Liberals-4.

And there is this little tidbit of info from the OP:

"The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels."

So, I'm not buying the sugar coating. The court cares more about profits than it does about humans.

[elleng]

15. Could live without your 'sweeet' sarcasm,

but it appears that you, like others, are still unwilling or unable to bother trying to understand the LAW.
Sorry.

[RobertEarl]

16. You could tell?

That I think this 5-4 SCOTUS sucks?

That nearly every decision they dump on us is questionable? Really? You get that?

In this case they overturned a state court decision even tho : "The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels." Does not "hidden by the drug maker" make you wonder about the RatWing's 'law'? You get that? Good for you.

[Triana]

12. And where is the MEDIA on this? Silent....

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023200361

Too busy with murderer Zimmerman, and with Egypt, and with Snowden.