Date: 11/3/2008
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration and a drug maker urged the Supreme Court on Monday to throw out a multimillion dollar verdict to a Vermont musician who lost her arm because of a botched injection to relieve nausea.
The case is being watched closely by the pharmaceutical industry and consumer groups because of its potential for broad limits on lawsuits by people, such as Diana Levine, who were harmed by prescription drugs.
But the justices seemed more likely on Monday to be headed toward a narrow ruling that might be confined to the facts of Levine’s case.
A Vermont jury awarded Levine $6.7 million after the improper injection of Phenergan, an anti-nausea drug made by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, caused gangrene that led to the amputation of her right arm.
The jury agreed with Levine that Wyeth should have included a stronger warning about the risks of a method of intravenous injection known as IV push.
But lawyers for Wyeth and the government said Levine’s case should have been thrown out of court because Phenergan has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration and its label adequately warned about its risks. FDA approval serves as a shield against liability lawsuits under state law in such cases, they said.
“The labeling plainly comprehended and warned about the specific risks of IV administration,” Seth Waxman, representing Wyeth, told the justices.
In recent years, the administration and business groups have aggressively pushed limits on lawsuits through the doctrine of pre-emption — asserting the primacy of federal regulation over rules that might differ from state to state.
But Justice Samuel Alito, among others, had a more basic question for Waxman.
“How could the FDA have concluded that IV push was safe and effective,” Alito asked, given that Phenergan is not a lifesaving drug and gangrene can result from improper administration?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg chimed in, “How could the benefit outweigh the substantial risk?”
Waxman responded that testimony in this case was clear that there are circumstances in which IV push is “medically warranted.”
David Frederick, representing Levine, argued that Wyeth never made clear to the FDA how dangerous IV push could be. He noted that Pfizer, Inc., stopped making IV push an acceptable method of injecting its anti-nausea drug after two amputations were reported.
A ruling probably will not come before early next year.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
