SCOTUS screws us again. Don't buy generic drugs.

[Wolferz]

Better start asking for brand name prescription medicines:hmmm:...
http://news.msn.com/us/generic-drugmakers-cant-be-sued-for-adverse-reactions

The SCOTUS has effectively given generic drug makers umbrella protection against litigation for harmful side effects caused by their products.

[Wolferz]

How many of these laws are at the state level?

The ruling does not prohibit suing under federal law does it?

I don't know. One would think that the litigants attorney should have known this. Maybe they are backing up and punting as we speak.
Besides, I still believe the states should have their rights of determination and not be subjected to what amounts to federal tyranny. Perhaps if they had sued in a federal court this wouldn't have been an issue. Since I am no armchair attorney I can't elaborate on the merits of any litigation. To the best of my understanding though, these things have to progress up the ladder from the local level first. Which is what was done according to the news article. But, the manufacturer hauled the verdict straight into the Supreme Court to get it successfully overturned.
Was justice served? Yes. For the drug maker. For the injured party? To be determined at a later date.
So, I'll skip all the fuzzy law crap and just buy brand name medications.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I don't know. One would think that the litigants attorney should have known this. Maybe they are backing up and punting as we speak.
Besides, I still believe the states should have their rights of determination and not be subjected to what amounts to federal tyranny. Perhaps if they had sued in a federal court this wouldn't have been an issue. Since I am no armchair attorney I can't elaborate on the merits of any litigation. To the best of my understanding though, these things have to progress up the ladder from the local level first. Which is what was done according to the news article. But, the manufacturer hauled the verdict straight into the Supreme Court to get it successfully overturned.
Was justice served? Yes. For the drug maker. For the injured party? To be determined at a later date.
So, I'll skip all the fuzzy law crap and just buy brand name medications.
IMO, her attorneys should have known this or consulted with an attorney who is experienced in Federal/FDA drug litigation. Maybe they did but decided to give the State level lawsuit a shot anyway. Unfortunately, federal Law always supersedes State Law unless otherwise stipulated.
Normally, a lawsuit of this magnitude goes to a Superior/Supreme Division of the courts in a given state. If the defendant files an appeal, it's usually heard by the Appellate Division in the state before going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It doesn't seem to say specifically in that article, but I'm guessing it already went through the NH Supreme Court.
I get the impression, by reading the article, that this federal Law has been in effect for some time now and the Pharmaceutical Company already knew about the Federal Law since it was the basis for their appeal.

"Mutual, backed by the Obama administration, said federal law trumped state law claims such as those Bartlett had made, pointing to the fact that the drug had already won FDA approval with an agency-approved label carrying safety warnings."

"A prior Supreme Court ruling in 2011 found that pharmaceutical companies that make branded drugs are liable for inadequacies in safety warnings of a medicine's label, but not the makers of cheaper copies of those medicines."

It seems to suggest to me that the Supreme Court decision was an overturn of an incorrect interpretation of the law by the Appellate Division.

If anyone is liable, maybe it's her doctor or the original patent holder of the drug.

[Wolferz]

Now we know and knowing is half the battle.
Thanks Wernher.:up:

To please you, Platapus, I'm going to stop commenting on news articles that seem to be increasingly half baked. Giving just enough detail for the reader to get the wrong impression. I guess that's what happens when Disney buys a media company and sails it into never never land. \:88)/ Goofy.

Is there anything else I can do to ease your passage through this crazy world?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Wolferz - you may want to try the reputable UK newspaper site www.dailymail.co.uk for fun, facts, and no fiction whatsoever.*

*until the next time.

and the time after that.

and that.

[Jimbuna]

Often better known as The Daily Fail :03:

[Sailor Steve]

Though from their readership you might think they're The Holy Grail.

[Wolferz]

I don't know fellas,
With all the clandestine skullduggery going on in the so called civilized world, I don't know if I can trust any news media outlet to present complete and factual news that isn't skewed in favor of someone's agenda.
Where's Seargent Joe Friday when you need him?

"Just the facts Ma'am"