HA525 Unit 1 Discussion 2/3

In two different paragraph with no less than 100 words give your personal opinion to Brenda Newcomb and

 Betty Daniels-Peterson 

 Betty Daniels-Peterson 

     The Wyeth case is a case that argued October 12th, 2010 and Decided February 22nd, 2011: This case was created because a vaccine injury was imposed on a child, this child became paralyzed after receiving the vaccination. There was an increase in the vaccine which constituted injury to the child. The child’s name was Hannah Bruesewitz’s,  Hannah’s parents filed a vaccine-injury petition in the court of Federal Claims, stating that their child Hannah became disabled after receiving a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine. At the time the vaccination was given to Hannah it appears that the company or laboratories owing the vaccine was manufactured by Lederle Laboratories; which is now owned by respondent Wyeth).

       It appears that the courts denied their claim, they then elected to reject the unfavorable judgement and filed a suit in Pennsylvania State court, which at this time they alleged defective design of Lederle vaccine which caused their daughter’s Hannah disability. Wyeth thought it was in his best interest to move this case to Federal District Court, this is where Wyeth Summary Judgement was granted. It was due to the fact that Pennsylvania law was preempted, causing the manufacturer not to be held liable in a civil action for damages.

     On the other hand there was a precedent of law associated with the same type case where a vaccine related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine related injury; which resulted in death associated with the administration of vaccine, and this was after October 1st, 1988 if it resulted in death form any sign effect; it was unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper direction and warning. Now under this section (a) Section 300aa-22(b)(1) text suggested that if the vaccine design was not open to any question pertaining to tort action. It goes on to say that a manufacture can be held liable for failure to use a different design.

     One of the reasons I fine is why the judge did not held Wyeth liable is one, because Hannah borned on October 20, 1991 and Wyeth purchased Lederle in 1994, and stopped manufacturing the vaccine in 1998. The vaccine received it’s approval in 1948, this give us a lot to think about; and to deliberate about as well.

     If I was the Judge I would take into consideration a lot things such as, I would look a the precedents of law, the condition of the child prior to vaccination, yes children must be vaccinated; however if the vaccination caused my child to become disable, I would pursue a law suit as well, and I would fight to win. If I was the Judge I would see to it that the manufactory of the vaccine is responsible for their actions. I also feel that Wyeth should have made Wyeth stop with the manufacturing of the vaccine before 1994, in fact all medication that cause complication should be removed  right away without hesitation.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions

Brenda Newcomb 

Professor/Class,

A couple of hours after Bruesewitz’s daughter received a DTP vaccine in the year of 1992, their daughter began having seizures and was admitted to the hospital for several weeks. Their daughter continuously suffers from a lingering disorder of seizures, that has required the daughter in receiving care on a constant level. The Bruesewitz’s filed a petition, when their daughter was three, seeking compensation for their daughter’s injuries after receiving the DTP vaccine. Thirty days prior to the Bruesewitz’s petition, a new regulation eliminated their daughter’s disorder of seizures from a listing of compensable injuries and caused their petition to be denied. In 1998, Wyeth withdrew the vaccine that was used for the immunization of the Bruesewitz’s daughter, from the market. The Bruesewitzes then filed another lawsuit against the drug company of Wyeth, in Pennsylvania’s state court. They claimed that Wyeth had failed in developing a safe vaccine and the drug company should be accountable in preventing injuries from a defective vaccine. A dismissal of the lawsuit was ruled by a judge in federal court, in which, he ruled “that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protected Wyeth from lawsuits over vaccine injury claims” (Oyez, n.d.).

The legal duties in the case that were breached are based on duty the manufacturers should not hurt the consumers with their products.  Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market without a warning, that in turn, caused a consumer injury, after normal usage. Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market, which could have been safer. And Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market that was not correctly manufactured. The court of Supreme declared the low court decision from an opinion formed by Justice Scalia. The majority rationale that Congress brought about a vaccine court in providing compensation for the children who are injured, in which it will not drive the manufacturers of drugs out of the market of the vaccine. Justice Breyer filed an agreement opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion of dissent and was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Kagan had no parts in any considerations in the case. I do agree with the reasoning of the court in this case of the DTP vaccine. If I was the judge, in this case, I would have ruled the same exact way that the judge did in this case (Supreme court, n.d).

Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth LLC, fka Wyeth, Inc.: Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-152