Comment on why we should not be so quick to believe that fear of malpractice litigation results in "defensive medicine"

The Boston Personal Injury Blog has posted a short comment on a recent essay in Time co-authored by Drs. Jesse Pines and Zachary Meisel which explains, contrary to tort reform rhetoric, that there are lots of reasons why doctors order unnecessary tests and procedures, quite apart from any fears of being sued. Go here for more. I have posted a lot recently on medical malpractice issues, particularly since the President's misguided comments on the subject during his state of the union address last month, including my comments on a bill currently under review by Congress. For more on the subject go here and scroll down (then you can read in chronological order scrolling up.) For my comments on the bill go here.

Public Citizen on Last-Minute Effort to Derail Consumer Product Safety Commission

A few days ago, I reported on a last-minute effort to derail the Consumer Product Safety Commission's attempt to launch a web-based public database containing consumer complaints about products. Public Citizen has picked up, and updated, the story here.

More comments on the Supreme Court cases from last week

Here are a couple of links to articles analyzing the two decisions by the Supreme Court on preemption from last week. The Abnormal Use Guide to Last Week's SCOTUS Preemption Opinions (from the Abnormal Use blog) Automaker Product Liability Lawsuit Over Seat Belts Can Proceed: Court (from AboutLawsuits.com) Last week at the Court: In Plain English (from SCOTUS blog) For previous posts go here and scroll down.

Pfizer settles case over medical experiments on Nigerian children

Back in January 2009 I reported that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived a claim filed under the Alien Torts Statute by Nigerian citizens against Pfizer claiming the company subjected their children to medical experimentation without their consent during a 1996 meningitis outbreak. The opinion is available here. In November 2009 I noted that case was appealed to the the US Supreme Court and that the Court asked the Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case. Then in June 2010, the Supreme Court rejected Pfizer's appeal after the US Solicitor General filed a brief arguing the Supreme Court should not bother to hear the case. Go here for the full story. Now the final chapter of this sad story seems to have been written. After 15 years of battling with Pfizer, the plaintiffs have settled with the company. The Wall Street Journal law blog has the story here. Reportedly, the plaintiffs were worried about the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision barring claims against a corporation under the Alien Tort Statute. For more on that case go here, here and here.

Comments on Williamson v Mazda

As expected the comments on the recent Supreme Court decisions keep coming. Here is an update: Amanda Rice, of the ScotUS blog, writes: Yesterday’s decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America dominated coverage of the Court. In Williamson, the Court held that federal auto safety standards do not preempt state tort suits alleging that car manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts on rear inner seats. The decision was unanimous. Justice Breyer wrote for the Court, Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. (Justice Kagan was recused.) The opinion is available here. David Savage of the Los Angeles Times describes the the decision as “a surprise outcome,” but he also notes that “[i]t is not clear whether [it] will open a door to many more successful suits against automakers.” Citing Tuesday’s decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (which Adam covered in yesterday’s round-up, and which is discussed further below), the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes points out that the decision in Williamson was “the Court’s second [preemption] case in two days,” and he suggests that “[t]he contrasting decisions show the difficulty in predicting the Court’s jurisprudence in this area and underscore the importance of the specifics of each case. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, SCOTUSblog, the Associated Press, the ABA Journal, Bloomberg, Courthouse News Service, Reuters, JURIST,and The Note blog for ABC News also have coverage of the decision. In addition here is a link to an article in the Wall Street Journal law blog. Kali Borkoski, of the ScotUS law blog, again, adds the latest: At the close of a busy week, the decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motors of America, which Amanda covered yesterday, is still generating discussion. Writing for the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Ashby Jones has coverage of the decision, while Annie Decker – writing for ACSblog – considers how the decision in Williamson is distinguishable from the Court’s 2000 decision in another automobile preemption case, Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal and Elizabeth Wydra at the Constitutional Accountability Center have also written about Williamson, with a focus in particular on Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion. UPDATE (2/28): Automaker Product Liability Lawsuit Over Seat Belts Can Proceed: Court (from AboutLawsuits.com)

This week's top stories

This week's top story is easy to select: the Supreme Court's two decisions related to the concept of preemption. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims brought in state court, while in Williamson v Mazda the Court held that a design defect claim brought in state court against a car manufacturer was not preempted by a federal regulation. For more on these cases, go here and scroll down. For other top stories go here for The Boston Personal Injury Blog's list of top stories this week.

Comment on the Supreme Court's decision on preemption in vaccine cases

Here is a link to an article analyzing the Supreme Court's opinion in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, in which the Supreme Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects. For more on the case go here and here.

Supreme Court evens the score on preemption; decides claims are not preempted in Williamson v Mazda

We have been following Williamson v Mazda since it was argued before the Supreme Court last year (here, here, here and here. You can listen to the oral argument here). In this case, the Court was asked to decide whether a state claim for damages caused by a car manufacturer's failure to install a three point seat belt in a 1993 car is preempted by federal regulations that allow vehicle manufacturers to install either lap-only or lap/shoulder seatbelts in certain seating positions. Today, the Court announced its decision in the case holding unanimously that the claim brought in state court was not preempted by the federal regulation. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment. Justice Kagan had recused herself. The text of the opinion is available here. I think Williamson is the most interesting of the torts preemption cases before the Court this term and the result is surprising in a couple of ways. First, there's the holding itself. The last time the Court addressed this issue, in Geier v Honda, it decided the claims were preempted. Second, there's the fact that the decision was unanimous. In Geier, the Court was sharply divided. And, third, the Court did not overrule Geier. I'll have to read the opinion to figure out how they managed that. For more comments on this decision go to SCotUS blog, Public Citizen, and the Drug and Device law blog. UPDATE: go here for links to more comments on the case.

Comments on the vaccine preemption case

As expected, there are a lot of reports and comments today on yesterday's Supreme Court opinion holding that defective design claims are preempted by the Vaccine Act. The court's opinion is available here. For more go to the following: TortsProf blog, Christian Science Monitor, Drug and Device Law Blog, Washington Legal Foundation, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, USA Today, WSJ Health Blog, NPR, CBS News, Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Times, and Courthouse News Service, UPDATE: For more go to The Jurist, ScoutUS blog and AboutLawsuits. Go here for more updates. Thanks to the SCOTUS blog for most of these links.

Supreme Court decides design defect claims are preempted by vaccine act

In a very closely watched case, the US Supreme Court ruled today that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts for injuries attributed to a vaccine. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia, said the vaccine law “pre-empts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, saying the ruling “leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.” For more on this very important case go here, here and here. For previous posts and more background information go here, here, here, here and here. I am assuming there will more comments on this case in the next few days so I will continue to update this post with more links as they come in. Check back for the latest.... UPDATE (2/23) go here and here for the latest.