Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Inquirer Mobile
Property Guide

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:

 
Breaking News / World Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > News > Breaking News > World

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  

  RELATED STORIES  




imns


US SUPREME COURT TAKES ON CASE
Can a parent of ill kid sue pharmaceutical firm?


Agence France-Presse
First Posted 11:24:00 03/09/2010

Filed Under: Justice & Rights, Health, Society, Judiciary (system of justice), Pharmaceuticals, Company Information

WASHINGTON DC, United States?The US Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the parents of a child who suffered serious health problems after being vaccinated can sue a pharmaceutical company for compensation.

The case, which the highest US court will hear in autumn, will serve as a focal point in a years? long debate in the United States over the effectiveness of preventive vaccines and whether they have caused health problems.

It involves Hannah Bruesewitz, who was left developmentally impaired after receiving a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccination.

Her parents are challenging decisions by two Pennsylvania courts that rejected their attempts to seek compensation from US pharmaceutical laboratory Wyeth, which made the vaccine.

The courts cited a 1988 law that prevents plaintiffs from seeking any "damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine."

But Bruesewitz's parents and the US Supreme Court noted a Georgia court ruling allowed parents to bring claims against vaccine manufacturers.

"After exhausting administrative remedies in the vaccine program, children in Georgia who are injured by vaccines may bring design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers when the use of safer alternative vaccines could have avoided their injuries," the Supreme Court wrote in agreeing to consider the case.

"By contrast, Hannah Bruesewitz and children like her... may be precluded from pursuing identical design defect claims even when the same safer alternative vaccines could have avoided their suffering too," it added.

The Supreme Court also said that the Pennsylvania courts used an overly broad interpretation of the 1988 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and "improperly" ignored conditional language that would allow compensation claims.

"By holding all vaccine design defect claims preempted, the Third Circuit (court) robs seriously-injured children and their parents of their right to seek compensation... when safer alternative vaccines would have prevented their injuries," the Supreme Court said.



Copyright 2013 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Share

RELATED STORIES:

OTHER STORIES:



  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2013 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Megaworld
TAGAYTAY FONTAINE VILLAS
Radio on Inquirer.net
Pacquiao