Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

Começar. É Gratuito
ou inscrever-se com seu endereço de e-mail
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011) por Mind Map: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Defendant: Wyeth Laboratories

1.1.2. Plaintiff: Russell Bruesewitz

1.2. Plaintiff's daughter received DTP vaccination on 10/21/1991

1.2.1. Hannah began having seizures 24 hours after vaccination

1.2.2. Diagnosed with Residual Seizure Disorder later in life

1.3. Plaintiff sued defendent in PA on the claims that a defect in the vaccine's development was the cause of Hannah's medical conditions.

1.4. Case was brought to the US Court of Federal Claims, but was denied by a Special Master

1.4.1. Case was moved to the East Pennsylvania US District Court Case was settled in the Third Circuit US court of Appeals

2. Issue

2.1. Should Wyeth be held liable for disabling Hannah Bruesewitz?

3. Rule of Law

3.1. The Rule of Law was whether NCVIA prevents vaccine-related medical claims against the pharmaceutical manufacturer.

4. Analysis/Application

4.1. NCVIA was passed to encourage vaccine development with in the USA through various incentive programs, including lawsuit and tort liability protections if certain guidelines were met. NCVIA preempts the plaintiff's claims.

4.1.1. Brusewitz wants Wyeth to be held liable for Hannah's medical conditions.

4.1.2. Wyeth claims that all compliance and regulatory measures were met according to NCVIA requirements.. As such, the company should not be held liable for the medical conditions.

5. Conclusion

5.1. NCVIA preempts all vaccine-related medical claims against pharmaceutical companies who are sued for wrongful injury or death caused by proper vaccination administration, assuming compliance and regulatory specifications were met.

6. Impact

6.1. Holmes v Merck

6.1.1. 6 months post-vaccination a child died from an MMR vaccination. The plaintiffs were awarded $250,000.

6.2. AHPC v Ferrari

6.2.1. Plaintiff sued AHPC for medical issues suffered by their child caused by a mercury additive to the vaccine.

7. Importance

7.1. The outcome of this case was important to the pharmaceutical industry, specifically the vaccine departments. The protections laid out in NCVIA were affirmed by the Supreme Court, which impact future decisionmaking in regards to additional funding.

8. Influence

8.1. Vaccine Manufacturing within the US states will continue as normal

8.2. Government support for public education initiatives regarding vaccines. Programs such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System have been rolled out for consumers to report vaccination problems.