0 votes

Supreme Court In Vaccine Case Rules In Favor Of Big Phama

Have fun with this one!

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law bars lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines.

By a 6-2 vote, the court ruled against the parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in Pennsylvania state court for the health problems they say their daughter, now 19, suffered from a vaccine she received in infancy.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said Congress set up a special vaccine court to handle such claims as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the vaccine market. The idea, he said, was to create a no-fault system that spares the drug companies the costs of defending against parents' lawsuits.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Nothing in the 1986 law "remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result," Sotomayor wrote, taking issue with Scalia.

Scalia's opinion was a stinging defeat for parents who found their award from the vaccine court insufficient or failed to collect at all.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Top 4 Victories Handed to Corporate America by the Supreme Court

-- So Far

"The Supreme Court's corporate bloc has evolved into the most dangerous branch of the federal government, routinely using its arbitrary power to undermine the people's democratic authority over our country's economy, environment, and political process."

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

"Unbridled by those that would usurpation."

"Unbridled by those that would usurp (1)(2)."

[Set book down. Look skyward. Muse.]

Must be missing something? Who is on deck? Where is the crew? The pilot! Oh, I forgot! Shift change....

[Twain scurries off to pilot's bridge.]

(1) usurp: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right b : to take or make use of without right.
(2) unauthorized power grab

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

those villains . . .

all of them!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The Vaccine Court paid $1.9B to 2,500 Vaccinated. 300M in line.

It is a long line. Take a number.

Announcement: "Now serving claimant 2,501. Claimant 2,501 please pickup your check. Now serving 2,501."

The vaccine court has 300,000,000 awaiting a place to stand in line.

"The vaccine court paid out more than $1.9 billion to more than 2,500 people who claimed a connection between a vaccine and serious health problems.

[$1.9B / 2,500 = $760,000 per claimant.

The vaccine court is part of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which generally has jurisdiction over individuals' claims against the federal government. Under the 1986 law, the court appoints lawyers to serve four-year terms as special masters, and they hear claims of vaccine-related injuries and decide whether parents should be compensated. Those decisions can be appealed to the Court of Federal Claims and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington."

A gaggle of lawyers are practicing medicine with the wrong license.

Lawyers! They hear claims of vaccine-related injuries. Then they pay claims?

Could we speed up the line?

Announcement: "Now serving claimant 2,502. Claimant 2,502, please pickup your check. Now serving 2,502."


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Crime syndicate bump



for the Brave New World.

This makes me very, very sad.


Look at the bright side: Lawyers in Medicine vs Doctors in Law?

I don't know which is the bright side:

Lawyers in Medicine
Doctors in Law?

Am I just confused?

I was OK with my Mother-in-Law.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul