Yesterday I saw something on Natural News that just seemed so perposterous I ignored it. It was about the move to exempt Pharma from meds that killed people even if it turns out the studies were fabricated, people lied, and the FDA did nothing to deal with previous warnings. Seems they want to limit damage to 0K and a cap of 1.6M when people died in those circumstances.

This is an important case that we all should be following. It will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. A woman lost her arm when I believe an anti nausea medicine was injected in her artery. She sued in state court and won. The drug manufacturer is appealing it, arguing that the drug labeling had been approved by the FDA. The White House, the Administration is on the side of business, not consumers on this issue, something about preemptive something or other.

Okay, found it, if one doesn't like the article for whatever reason, try googling "supreme court, drug manufacturer, federal preemption" for a start

Bush administration rules limit lawsuits

By PETE YOST – May 13, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Faced with an unfriendly Congress, the Bush administration has found another, quieter way to make it more difficult for consumers to sue businesses over faulty products. It's rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook.

Lawsuit limits have been included in 51 rules proposed or adopted since 2005 by agency bureaucrats governing just about everything Americans use: drugs, cars, railroads, medical devices and food.

Decried by consumer advocates and embraced by industry, the agencies' use of the government's rule-making authority represents the administration's final act in a long-standing drive to shield companies from lawsuits.

President Bush has campaigned for lawsuit reform since his days as Texas governor. As president, he has made little headway on the issue in Congress. He's been thwarted by Democrats every time he's tried to tackle the issue head-on.

Turns out there was another way, one little-noticed step at a time.

If the rulemaking at the various agencies had been a centralized effort in the White House or the Justice Department, "it would have failed because immediately everybody would have mobilized resistance," said Michael Greve of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank.

Limits on lawsuits have been ordered or proposed for drug labeling and packaging — one issue that will get a big airing, on Wednesday, because of a case involving actor Dennis Quaid's newborn twins — and for rules ranging from mattress flammability standards to school bus passenger seating to dietary sweeteners and roof-crush requirements in car rollovers.

Of the 51 regulations, 41 came from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA.

Ten of 15 federal traffic safety regulations from last year have been finalized by NHTSA and are now in force or soon will be, a development that has gotten minimal public attention.

Underlying this bureaucratic version of lawsuit reform is the concept of federal preemption — a legal idea that is hard to build widespread public interest in.

Rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal preemption refers to circumstances in which federal law and regulation trump state law, in this instance state laws that govern when one person may be held liable for another's injury.

Frequently filed in state courts, where juries often are more receptive to plaintiffs' claims against corporations, product liability lawsuits are often moved at the request of business defendants to more restrictive federal courts.

Regardless of where the suits end up, the issue is increasingly whether companies can use broad preemption language in regulatory preambles to get cases thrown out.

For rest of article see:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWny_K8nFBtTE0S_4OLUaKQlgChAD90KVHEO1

As Melody Peterson says, drug companies deal with life and death unlike other companies, i.e. car. computers, appliances. They are not the same and should have a higher standard. My opinion.

Jan

In February 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Riegel vs. Medtronic, an 8-1 decision that a consumer can't sue the maker of a medical device if the FDA has tested and approved that device. In the Reigel case, the court found that the 1976 Medical Device Amendments Act preempt claims made by consumers in state courts. The court's interpretation was news to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who had been the Senate sponsor of the 1976 law. Kennedy said, “In enacting legislation on medical devices, Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by faulty devices."

This fall, the Supreme Court looks at whether FDA-approved drug makers are also immune from lawsuits when it hears Wyeth vs. Levine. The case will look at whether the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act should be read as pre-empting such lawsuits.

Congressman Henry Waxman, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing earlier this month regarding federal preemption -- the principle that federal regulations of a product preempt consumers from suing the maker of that product in state civil courts. If the preemption principle prevails in the court this fall, the committee said Congress would write legislation saying that FDA regulations do not take away a consumer's right to sue.

For more info see article:

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/dems-seek-to-stymie

"White House Backs Wyeth on Preemption" | Arthritis Information

Bush administration rules limit lawsuits