Drug firms told to pay $162M in hepat...

Drug firms told to pay $162M in hepatitis C case

There are 5 comments on the KTNV-TV Las Vegas story from Oct 10, 2011, titled Drug firms told to pay $162M in hepatitis C case. In it, KTNV-TV Las Vegas reports that:

A Nevada jury is ordering pharmaceutical companies to pay $162.5 million in punitive damages in a lawsuit stemming from a Las Vegas hepatitis C outbreak in 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTNV-TV Las Vegas.

FBOMBER

Winnipeg, Canada

#1 Oct 10, 2011
Right on. Put these killers out of business and their CEO's in prison.
HumanSpirit

Lexington, KY

#2 Oct 11, 2011
FBOMBER wrote:
Right on. Put these killers out of business and their CEO's in prison.
You have that right.
FBOMBER

Winnipeg, Canada

#3 Oct 16, 2011
These are the companies that we are told to trust for health care. Seems they certainly need government protection from litigation because the are habitually found guilty of marketing faulty, fraudulent product. How their CEO's stay out of prison is a mystery. Hint: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Dalton

Stanley, NC

#4 Oct 17, 2011
Wait until Obummer care gets started! No telling what will kill us!
HumanSpirit

Fort White, FL

#5 Oct 17, 2011
Dalton wrote:
Wait until Obummer care gets started! No telling what will kill us!
I disagree because Obama acted in the defense of the American people against the Republican ALEC Bush :

Obama’s Preemption Memo: Limiting Regulatory Preemption of State Common Law Claims
By Matt Melamed, Public Justice Kazan-Wallace Fellow
 
On May 20, 2009, President Obama reversed one of the most nefarious practices of the Bush administration by issuing a memorandum (Preemption Memo) aimed at curbing federal preemption by regulatory fiat. (The memorandum is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Pr... .)  With the Preemption Memo, the President made clear his intent to limit federal agencies’ efforts to preempt state law claims merely by declaring that they would conflict with federal regulatory purposes.  This position represents a radical shift from that taken by the Bush administration, which aggressively encouraged federal agencies to seek to preempt state tort law in precisely that fashion.  For the first time in a long time, consumer advocates have an ally in the executive branch. 

The Bush Administration’s Stealth Tort Reform Effort

The Preemption Memo is described more fully below.  But its importance can only be understood against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to implement stealth tort reform.  Since 2005, seven federal agencies have issued over 60 proposed or final rules that were accompanied by introductory statements – commonly known as “preambles”– stating that the rule preempts state tort law on the ground that lawsuits involving the regulated matters would conflict with the agencies’ regulatory goals. See, e.g., Press Release, American Association for Justice, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority (Oct. 15, 2008), available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/h...
 
The most notorious example of this practice is the preamble to a 2006 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling regulation, which states that the FDA’s approval of a prescription drug’s label “preempts conflicting or contrary State law,” including lawsuits seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable for failing adequately to warn of a drug’s dangers. 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934-35 (2006).  This preemption preamble was particularly egregious because it represented a 180-degree reversal of the FDA’s prior views on the matter:  before the Bush administration took power, the FDA enthusiastically endorsed tort litigation as complementing the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs. (As discussed below, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2006 labeling regulation’s preemptive preamble was not entitled to any deference.)
 
The intention behind this and other Bush-era preemption preambles is clear:  by attempting to strip consumers of their rights to sue, the Bush administration was pandering to the business community, which seeks at all costs to immunize itself from tort liability. 

more:

http://www.publicjustice.net/Resources/Backgr...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hepatitis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should state mandate immunizations? New require... (May '11) Jul 21 VaXXed 9,682
Cure for hepatitis affordable? Jun '16 peter USA 2
News Dynavax Technologies: An Updated View After FDA... May '16 ELISE 1
News Indiana counties must fund needle exchanges san... Apr '16 Shooting up 4 tim... 6
News Teva says it will stop making sedative linked t... (May '10) Apr '16 Locator 13
News a possible cure for Hep C (May '06) Apr '16 guseppie 104
viagra from $0.67 per pill!!! Apr '16 Salas 1
More from around the web