Dems move to overturn shield for device makers

0 comments

Posted on 5th March 2009 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , ,

Date: 3/5/2009

By MATTHEW PERRONE
AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — A day after the Supreme Court decided that federal rules do not protect drugmakers from state lawsuits, Democrats in Congress moved to overturn a decision that has shielded medical device companies from similar legal action.

On Wednesday the court turned away Wyeth’s claim that it could not be sued in state courts for its drug Phenegran, because it had already been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The ruling upheld a $6.7 million award to a Vermont woman who lost her arm after she was improperly injected with the company’s nausea medication.

Seizing on the decision, Democrats on Thursday reintroduced a bill that would allow similar lawsuits against companies that make heart devices, catheters, hip replacements and other devices.

“Yesterday the Supreme Court rightfully upheld a patient’s right to legal recourse after sustaining an injury from a pharmaceutical product,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J. “Today, we introduce legislation that gives patients that same right when injured by a medical device.”

The idea that corporations are shielded from state liability claims by federal rules is relatively new and was pushed aggressively under the Bush administration.

Last year, the Supreme Court agreed with the pre-emption policy in a case involving medical devices, ruling a patient injured by a catheter from Medtronic could not sue under state laws. That case turned on a provision of federal law prohibiting states from imposing their own requirements on the devices. There’s no similar provision for drugs.

Since then thousands of lawsuits against Medtronic and other device companies have been dismissed by lower courts, citing the Supreme Court’s decision.

But Pallone and other Democrats said Thursday that decision ignored decades of precedent, in which lawsuits brought by patients in state courts helped bolster safety regulation at the federal level. The bill to restore liability claims against device makers is co-sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee. He is expected to hold hearings on the issue in coming weeks.

The device industry’s chief lobbying group quickly slammed the effort, saying it will “produce a chilling effect on medical innovation, create more lawsuits and ultimately result in higher health care costs for all Americans.”

The Advanced Medical Technology Association, or AdvaMed, said the legislation would allow state courts to second-guess medical experts at the FDA and create a “patchwork of inconsistent and confusing guidance.”

Despite opposition from industry, the Medical Device Safety Act enjoys support from a broad range of interest groups, including consumer advocates, trial lawyers and AARP. With companion legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., many analysts have already predicted the measure will become law.

Earlier in the day AdvaMed rolled out its first-ever advertising guidelines for companies like Medtronic Inc., Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific Corp. Among other things, the guidelines urge companies to state the risks of their implants clearly and concisely when advertising them to consumers.

The device industry has begun attracting new scrutiny from lawmakers as companies increasingly pitch their implants to consumers via TV and magazine advertisements.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Court hears amputee's case on limits of drug suits

0 comments

Posted on 3rd November 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , ,

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.

Update: Supreme Court will be looking at drug maker liability

0 comments

Posted on 6th October 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , ,

Date: 10/6/2008 12:05 AM

Diana Levine, a musician from Vermont, won a $6.8 million judgment against drug maker Wyeth in state court after the injection of an anti-nausea drug led to the amputation of her arm. There is no dispute that the drug, which has been around for 50 years, is safe when administered properly or that there is a risk of gangrene if it is not.

The issue for the court is whether Wyeth could have issued stronger warnings about the risks without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration. The company says it would have needed FDA approval and that federal regulation leaves no role for the states. The Bush administration is on the company’s side.

But Levine, backed by 47 states, says that state laws complement federal regulation and that before Bush took office, the FDA thought so, too.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Supreme Court will be looking at drug maker liability

0 comments

Posted on 4th October 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , ,

Date: 10/4/2008 10:20 AM
By The Associated Press

The Supreme Court is back in session on Monday. One high-profile case they will be taking up involves drugmaker Wyeth.

—Drug maker liability: Vermont musician Diana Levine won a $6.8 million judgment against drugmaker Wyeth after having part of her right arm amputated in 2000 when an anti-nausea drug was injected improperly. Now Wyeth, backed by the Bush administration, wants the high court to rule that Food and Drug Administration regulation of prescription drugs — in this case, approval of warning labels for drugs — overrides state laws and makes it easier for companies to defend against consumers’ claims.