Blog Post

Why You Should be Interested in Pre-emption


March 31, 2008
Topic: Pharmaceutical Liability

The US Supreme Court is getting ready to hear an appeal by pharmaceutical giant Wyeth in the case of Wyeth vs. Levine. The case involves a pianist, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm after she received the drug Phenargan through her vein for a migraine headache. Levine filed a lawsuit and won $6.8 million in a state court. Wyeth is now appealing the decision. Wyeth is arguing that federal law should pre-empt certain product liability lawsuits brought against corporations in state courts. If Wyeth prevails this would mean that if a drug was approved by the FDA and met all FDA safety standards, the state has no right to pass a judgment against the company.

It's far from a unique case, and across the country murmurs of dissent are being heard as litigation lawyers argue for the right of individuals to be able to sue corporations for injuries caused by products that are approved by federal agencies. It's not only the drug industry that may be affected by pre-emption rules. If you bought a blender that was approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for instance, and it burst into flames injuring you, federal pre-emption wouldn't allow you to sue the manufacturer in state court.

Pre-emption is the best friend of the corporate defense attorney. Some even call it a corporation's "get out of jail free" card. What it does is allow corporations to get out of having to pay for their negligence because a federal agency approved the product. Not only that, states would find their right to enact laws to protect citizens' health and safety severely restricted.

The move towards pre-emption has been particularly high during the Bush administration. Agencies have recently passed rules protecting a dozen drug companies and other corporations from product liability lawsuits. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received a proposal from 26 states asking for dropping of lawsuit protection granted to auto manufacturers. Injured persons' medical expenses have to be borne by state and federal governments, when they should actually be the sole responsibility of the company, the states argued. As of now, the National Highway Safety Administration has not dropped the lawsuit protection.

The fight against pre-emption hasn't left celebrities untouched. Actor Dennis Quaid is preparing to fight exactly such a pre-emption when he goes to court against Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Quaid's twin babies became seriously sick when they were injected up to 100 times the prescribed dosage of heparin. Their suit alleges that Baxter should have changed its packaging after it found that 3 babies had died at another hospital earlier.

There can be no two ways about it. The threat of litigation is the only thing that can keep corporations on their toes and focused on ensuring the quality of their products. Take that fear away, and you have a framework for further negligence and carelessness. Companies that make billions of dollars don't need the protection of the federal government. It's the common man with no money to pay his medical expenses after being injured by a product that's been cleared by federal agencies, who should be defended at all costs.

If you have suffered adverse side effects from a dangerous pharmaceutical drug, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.


The California personal injury attorneys at The Reeves Law Group represent victims of accidents, injuries and wrongful death throughout California from our offices in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Fresno County, Kern County, Sacramento County, San Fernando Valley, Long Beach, Antelope Valley, Torrance, Glendale, Bakersfield, Santa Ana, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Ontario, and Victorville.