• 2,99 €

Description de l’éditeur

Most people think of preemption as a technical, constitutional doctrine, but it is pivotally important to health and safety and opens the door to broad judicial discretion. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts' jurisprudence, with its support for both business and preemption, has been distinctly antiregulatory, invalidating major state public health rules in occupational safety, tobacco control, and motor vehicle safety, among other things. (1) And apart from these antiregulatory stances, the Supreme Court has also been maddeningly inconsistent. Consider three relatively recent cases. In its 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court held that federal law bars injured consumers from challenging the safety or effectiveness of medical devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (2) A year later, however, in Wyeth v. Levine, the Court came to the opposite conclusion, ruling that injured consumers could sue pharmaceutical companies for failing to warn about the risks of taking brand-name drugs. (3) Yet on June 23, 2011, in PLIVA, Inc., v. Mensing, the Court found that injured consumers could not bring failure-to-warn claims for injuries caused by FDA-approved generic pharmaceuticals. (4) Thus, in less than four years, the Court barred state health and safety litigation for FDA-approved medical devices, allowed failure-to-warn claims for branded pharmaceuticals, and then barred those same claims for generic pharmaceuticals. (5)

GENRE
Science et nature
SORTIE
2011
1 septembre
LANGUE
EN
Anglais
LONGUEUR
5
Pages
ÉDITEUR
Hastings Center
TAILLE
53.7
Ko

Plus de livres par The Hastings Center Report