Supreme Court rules for Pharmaceutical Company in vaccine Dispute

Feb. 22, 2011 5:22 PM ET
Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Long/Short Equity, Special Situations, Contrarian

Contributor Since 2009

Editor and Publisher ... Henry enters his thirteen (13) year at RegMed Investors which aggregates, curates and creates bottom-line content of regenerative medicine - stem, gene and cell therapy news providing a "vetted" selection of relevant and high-impact synthesis. He was VP - Strategic Planning and Communication at Curis (2001-2002), HQCM focusing on healthcare investments (NYSE:HQH/HQL) from (1985-2001)and founded LifeScience Economics, a healthcare research and analytics firm with offices in Boston, MA and Palo Alto, CA. Past experiences include Thermo Scientific, SWEC following 5 years at the FBI. A former military officer, Henry has been an adjunct professor at Boston University and Golden Gate University where he taught courses in venture capital, corporate finance and strategic development in the universities' graduate business schools.
The Supreme Court ruled for drug manufacturers 2/22/11, deciding that a case brought by a Pennsylvania family who says their child was injured by a vaccine cannot be heard outside of a court created to hear such claims.
  • The so-called “vaccine court” which has handled such disputes, was designed to ensure a reliable, steady supply of vaccines by reducing the threat of expensive lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms;
  • Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said congressional ambiguity in the law played a part in their conclusions;
  • “The lack of guidance for design defects [in the drugs] combined with the extensive guidance for the grounds of liability specifically mentioned in the act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability,” he wrote. (HWM and CNN)

The Bottom Line: At issue was whether such liability claims can proceed in separate state courts, if the vaccine-related injuries could have been “avoided” by better product design and if federal officials had approved another, allegedly safer drug. “Taxing vaccine manufacturers’ product to fund the compensation program, while leaving their liability for design defects virtually unaltered, would be an odd way to make vaccine manufacture more effective,” said Scalia.

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.