[olsen]

Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Drug Lawsuits

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...t.html?_r=1&hp

[mrsD]

Yes I saw this too.

I am so relieved!

I am surprised that it involved Phenergan. This is an old old drug. It has been on the market for over 40 yrs!

The method of administration, is what damaged that patient.
It comes in a mixture with Demerol too, called Mepergan.

I wonder what will happen when the statins law suits begin?

You know in my state a doofus judge was responsible for getting a ban on suing for product liability for drugs!

The vaccine industry is the most impacted by the problem of drug injury.

At least we can breathe a sigh of relief for now. I think this topic will cycle back, however.

[lurkingforacure]

"The vaccine industry is the most impacted by the problem of drug injury."

What did you mean by that? I have many, many concerns about all the vaccines they want parents to pump into their vulnerable babies, but don't see how this ruling will really impact that industry, particularly since almost every case involving vaccines and autism or injury is thrown out for lack of causal evidence. I realize we have that vaccine recovery fund, but it is very rare, and hard, for claims to be successfully asserted against it. Can you elaborate?

[mrsD]

The autism community has had two landmark decisions on this subject.... one was just last week.

Once a court states "vaccines caused this" then it opens doors for other parents.
http://www.generationrescue.org/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_169673.html

There is still some back and forth on this, but it is far more positive today, than ever before about vaccines/injuries.

Look what LymeRX vaccine did! I think all vaccines have potential for harm.

[indigogo]

one less rock for the pharmaceutical industry to hide behind (or under). this is very good news for the People.

[paula_w]

As usual, it's excess that makes the system eventually fail. This is not an opinion about vaccines and I know peoples' children are involved. I love children and taught children who had conditions like autism.

But I can't follow the reasoning behind always finding someone to blame and then taking all their money. It feels like disrespect for a person's life to put any price tag on it, especially in amounts set to become so wealthy, along with the lawyers. It turns into an advantage in some ways that something went wrong.

Do astronomical amounts of money solve anything? I am not following this issue closely but notice that it's not about suing, it's about how much you can sue for. Must lawsuits be automatic when there is an event or accident? Some things are truly accidents, which do happen regardless of how careful one tries to be. It has larger consequences when someone's life is at stake, and lawsuits have effectively separated the medical and patient community, along with insurance companies - the usual corporate greed at work all around. And we pay them all. They owe us much more - but here is where we aren't looking any better.iMHO

Always exceptions i realize.

These feelings didn't appear overnight and come from my having a real problem with doctors' attitudes toward their patients. Being sued is definitely one of the reasons our healthcare is astronomically expensive and some doctors justify their own mediocrity. It's harder to break thru the arrogance and even contempt that comes from the medical community - mention the word attorney and see them change color with anger - so they might listen to us on equal footing, when a lawsuit is emminent if the doctor makes a mistake.

Don't mean to hurt anyone's feeling whose child may have had a bad reaction to vaccines. My cause involves getting doctors to talk to us like the human beings that we are, and to include us in treatment development, which could be applied to vaccines. We don't deserve to be rich, compensated yes, but not super rich, because something went wrong in our lives.

This excludes criminal behaviors of course. Just referring to medical events where someone or institution must be a scapegoat.

The pain isn't the point, hope i'm making that clear....I think some people would honestly settle for true compassion and honesty from the person whose "fault" is determined - and feel better about it in the end.

If you are thinking I need to be in that position to understand, you would probably have a good point.

paula

[reverett123]

Keep in mind that there are two types with entirely different purposes.
Compensatory damages are a measure of the pain and suffering experienced.
Punitive damages are to punish wrongdoing that hurt someone.
The former are relatively small. But if the latter are to have the desired effect, they have to be huge. A company with an income greater than most countries is not going to notice the monetary value of a human life. It is only when it gets to a level where the investors notice that it becomes effective.

Originally Posted by paula_w

As usual, it's excess that makes the system eventually fail. This is not an opinion about vaccines and I know peoples' children are involved. I love children and taught children who had conditions like autism.

But I can't follow the reasoning behind always finding someone to blame and then taking all their money. It feels like disrespect for a person's life to put any price tag on it, especially in amounts set to become so wealthy, along with the lawyers. It turns into an advantage in some ways that something went wrong.

Do astronomical amounts of money solve anything? I am not following this issue closely but notice that it's not about suing, it's about how much you can sue for. Must lawsuits be automatic when there is an event or accident? Some things are truly accidents, which do happen regardless of how careful one tries to be. It has larger consequences when someone's life is at stake, and lawsuits have effectively separated the medical and patient community, along with insurance companies - the usual corporate greed at work all around. And we pay them all. They owe us much more - but here is where we aren't looking any better.iMHO

Always exceptions i realize.

These feelings didn't appear overnight and come from my having a real problem with doctors' attitudes toward their patients. Being sued is definitely one of the reasons our healthcare is astronomically expensive and some doctors justify their own mediocrity. It's harder to break thru the arrogance and even contempt that comes from the medical community - mention the word attorney and see them change color with anger - so they might listen to us on equal footing, when a lawsuit is emminent if the doctor makes a mistake.

Don't mean to hurt anyone's feeling whose child may have had a bad reaction to vaccines. My cause involves getting doctors to talk to us like the human beings that we are, and to include us in treatment development, which could be applied to vaccines. We don't deserve to be rich, compensated yes, but not super rich, because something went wrong in our lives.

This excludes criminal behaviors of course. Just referring to medical events where someone or institution must be a scapegoat.

The pain isn't the point, hope i'm making that clear....I think some people would honestly settle for true compassion and honesty from the person whose "fault" is determined - and feel better about it in the end.

If you are thinking I need to be in that position to understand, you would probably have a good point.

paula

[lurkingforacure]

Yes, it's touchy. But if the US would go to a loser-pay system, where you have to pay the defense's costs if you lost, would go a LONG way to eliminating a LOT of the frivolous suits. I understand the problem, with many thinking someone should pay, and pay dearly (indeed, they should never have to work again!) if they so much as stub a toe on a sidewalk, yet left unchecked, we all know where that would lead.

But with loser pay, well, now, they can still have their day in court, they just have to be willing to put their money where their mouth is, up front. I even think perhaps the lawyer filing the suit should maybe have to chip in for those potential defense costs in the event he loses the lawsuit, it would really make that lawyer think a lot more carefully about the merits of his/her case before he/she filed it. Germany has this system and it has apparently been very successful in cutting down on the frivolous lawsuits. One frivolous lawsuit, and most small businesses here in the US are out of business.

Of course, I can't see this ever happening, what with the law schools graduating thousands upon thousands of lawyers every year with no end in sight. I guess that's no different, though, than the medical schools pumping out thousands upon thousands of doctors every year, though, huh?

[reverett123]

1- Be aware that there has been a long time effort by the big corps to convince you that they are the victims of these frivolous suits when legitimate suits far outweigh them. How about if we made it so that if the courts ultimately rule that a suit was frivolous, that then the loser would pay. But not just because they lost.
2- And instead of loser pay, how about a proportion of assets approach. If I run up a quarter-million dollar legal bill trying to get help for my child because a vaccine seemed the cause of his autism and I am unable to convince a jury that it is so does not mean that I am wrong. But I am still broke since that represents about five years of my income. So, how about if I do convince the jury, then Big Pharm pays out five years of their income?
3- Finally, the US legal system is indeed messy, but the concept of everyone having a lawyer as a hired-gun is not all bad. Anne Frobert has told me of some horrendous actions by French doctors that would never happen in the US for the sole reason that there would be attorneys all over it because they stand to receive a cut. It levels the playing field.

Of course, we could emulate China and take the greedy CEO out and put a bullet in his head.

Originally Posted by lurkingforacure

Yes, it's touchy. But if the US would go to a loser-pay system, where you have to pay the defense's costs if you lost, would go a LONG way to eliminating a LOT of the frivolous suits. I understand the problem, with many thinking someone should pay, and pay dearly (indeed, they should never have to work again!) if they so much as stub a toe on a sidewalk, yet left unchecked, we all know where that would lead.

But with loser pay, well, now, they can still have their day in court, they just have to be willing to put their money where their mouth is, up front. I even think perhaps the lawyer filing the suit should maybe have to chip in for those potential defense costs in the event he loses the lawsuit, it would really make that lawyer think a lot more carefully about the merits of his/her case before he/she filed it. Germany has this system and it has apparently been very successful in cutting down on the frivolous lawsuits. One frivolous lawsuit, and most small businesses here in the US are out of business.

Of course, I can't see this ever happening, what with the law schools graduating thousands upon thousands of lawyers every year with no end in sight. I guess that's no different, though, than the medical schools pumping out thousands upon thousands of doctors every year, though, huh?

[olsen]

Using possible vaccine injured children is not applicable here--the only way a parent may sue for vaccine injury is thru the "vaccine courts". There is a statutes of limitations for a complaint to be heard in this court "three years from manifestation of onset of symptoms" and there has to be clear documentation from child's med records of immune system dysfunction. There are limiitations for payment --ie a $250,000 cap on payment for death from a vaccine. there has been one payment by this court for a vaccine related autism in a child, Hannah Poling , whose father is a pediatric neurologist in atlanta, ga. In that instance, the ruling was that there was evidence the vaccine "unmasked" an underlying mitochondrial cytopathy the child had.
RIck noted the most salient issue--punative damages for wrongdoing. For instance in the Vioxx case, the pharma company knew that compared to placebo, there was a significant increase in heart disease, stroke and death from heart disease for those using Vioxx. the pharma co sat on this infomation for more than 6 months, realizing sales of the drug which totaled $2.5 billion/yr at that time.
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/18.php
Should the pharma cos pay in this instance--I think that's a resounding "yes". Knowledge of evidence of harm that is kept from the public and prescribing physicians while the pharm co attempts to "figure out what the statistics mean" (the numbers were very clear in this instance--the RR btn the placebo group and the Vioxx group was 50%)should be enough reason to compensate those harmed thru the pharm cos efforts to cover up scientific information in their possession.