Kia Franklin

Civil Justice Victory for Diabetes Patients

I can’t wait til the Supreme Court evolves past its current reputation for being overly corporatist and unconcerned with the common person. Even though yesterday’s 4-4 decision can’t be seen as entirely symbolic of the Court’s orientation, the Court’s ruling in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent is certainly a step in the right direction towards access to justice for regular Americans. (NYT, SCOTUSblog)

The Court ruled in favor of diabetes patients who took Warner-Lambert’s drug Rezulin and suffered serious liver damage. The drug company tried to claim that FDA regulations preempted a Michigan state drug law that gives Michigan patients access to the courts. The law lets injured patients hold drugmakers accountable for dangerous drugs that they knowingly released into the market, when the companies a) misrepresent information during the FDA approval process for the drug and b) when that information, if presented properly, would have led the FDA not to approve the drug.

Rezulin had been FDA approved and then later pulled from the market after its harmful effects became known. In the mean time, many patients suffered serious liver damage and sought to hold the drugmaker accountable for marketing the drug despite its dangers. Now, the Supreme Court’s split decision means that these injured patients will have access to justice through the courts. This decision provides some hope after several disappointing decisions that shut the courthouse door to people with important legal claims, such as the Court’s recent pro-corporation decision in the preemption case, Riegel v. Medtronic.

As Public Citizen attorney Allison Zieve points out, this Michigan drug law “allows Michigan patients to hold companies liable in only the most egregious cases, the most narrow circumstances.” This makes it even more ridiculous that corporations would hem and haw over the law, and only goes to show that tort “reform” is only about protecting corporations from having to pay for putting profits ahead of people. It’s not about actually reforming our legal system in a way that makes it work better for the average person.

In this context, it is a strange claim to make that federal agency preemption is about preserving government agency powers. This Michigan law would actually support the FDA’s function, and thus its power as a regulatory agency, by providing added incentives for drugmakers not to try and defraud the FDA or take advantage of its stretched resources. I’ll quote Public Citizen lawyer Allison Zieve, who made this point well:

At a time when the FDA is—by its own admission—underfunded, lacking in the resources of the industry, and lacking the expertise to adequately protect the public health, the ability of injured patients to hold drug companies liable for injuries caused by their products is particularly important.

Click here for past blogs on the Supreme Court’s preemption cases.

To read DMI’s position on Federal Preemption and to link to other important civil justice issues that the Presidential Candidates should be talking about, click here.

Posted at 9:56 AM, Mar 04, 2008 in Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)