Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Honolulu Personal Injury LawyerFederal Preemption Puts Consumers At Risk According To Observers
By Wayne Parsons
In an op-ed in the Des Moines Register (3/20) Joel Olah, executive director of aging resources of central Iowa, wrote,
"Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of medical-device manufacturers and against consumers in a case that has ramifications on the individual rights of thousands of Iowans." He added that "this issue is extremely important to aging Iowans, who along with many other older Americans are increasingly reliant on medical devices to sustain life."
Olah said, "Federal pre-emption puts consumers at risk because the federal government does not always get it right and cannot identify every safety problem" and "the legal system serves as an important check and balance while giving manufacturers an incentive to improve products so that more consumers are not injured or killed." Concluding, he wrote, "Iowans have relied on their state courts to be an effective check and balance on manufacturers who produce dangerous products. Congress should act quickly to restore that balance."
Juries should not be allowed to make decisions on product safety, lawyer says. In an op-ed in the Kansas City Star (3/21) Bert Rein, partner at Wiley Rein and of counsel to Wyeth in the Levine case, wrote, "Congress created federal public health agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration because it takes experts to consider the complexities and the risks and benefits of prescription drugs and medical devices." The Star says that "by permitting lay juries to second-guess the FDA's decisions on what options doctors should have available in administering prescription drugs, the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine creates uncertainty for patients and doctors by placing the experience of a single patient above the public health interests of everyone." He concluded that "elevating risk avoidance over utility is not always the best way to regulate."
What do you think? Are citizens incapable of telling right from wrong? Should the FDA be the final word on drugs even if it turns out the drug is harming patients and has defects that the FDA missed? Do you trust the government?
Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne ParsonsFull post as published by Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer on March 23, 2009 (boomark / email).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
DirecTV
alleging a cancellation fee that is improperly or insufficiently disclosed to consumers.
Antitrust
Price Fixing Could Cost Consumers up to $300 Billion Annually
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
Airborne Settlement
Company agrees to pay consumers $23.3 million class action settlement for false advertising.
Auto Financing
Credit Acceptance Corp. agrees to $52.1 million class action settlement after overcharging consumers for fees and interest on automobile installment contracts.

Federal Preemption Seen as Putting Consumers at Risk
More critiques of Riegel v. Medtronic, preemption
Preemption: Meanwhile, back at the convention
Why Doctors Should Worry About Preemption








