Supreme Court Decision, Obama Policies Affect Darvocet Lawsuits
The decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last November to recall all products containing the drug propoxyphene has led to numerous Darvon and Darvocet lawsuits being filed in state and federal courts. As they are currently interpreted under President Obama, state tort laws allow an individual harmed by corporate irresponsibility to sue for damages. But during the Bush Administration, there was a push for federal preemption, or the precedence of federal law over state law, in regards to a citizen's right to sue a company that caused him or her harm.
The United States constitution says that federal law trumps state law whenever there is a conflict of the two. Under President George W. Bush, however, several federal agencies attempted to extend this principle to include not only federal law, but federal regulations, such as those implemented by the FDA.
The argument basically went that if a product had won FDA (a federal agency) approval, this carried the same weight as federal law, effectively preempting state tort law. In one Supreme Court decision, the Bush Administration argued that a patient injured by an exploding balloon catheter could not sue the manufacturer under state law because the device had been approved by the FDA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the manufacturer.
But in 2009, The Supreme Court largely reversed directions. In Wyeth v. Levine, a Vermont woman who took the drug Phenergan sued its manufacturer, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth, after her arm was amputated due to tissue damage. She accused the drugmaker of failing to warn about Phenergan's dangers, a charge that Wyeth argued was preempted by the fact that the drug was FDA-approved. The Supreme Court ruled that just because a drug obtains FDA approval does not mean its manufacturer is absolved of the duty to sufficiently warn of its risk. And Obama, upon entering office, acted to further reverse Bush-era preemption policy by issuing a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies that recognized the important of state law for safeguarding the public.
The same "failure to warn" charges in Wyeth v. Levine can be found in the numerous lawsuits against Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, the company that distributes Darvon and Darvocet. Claimants are accusing the company of insufficiently warning of the drugs' cardiac dangers. Thanks to the shift in the way federal preemption is interpreted, plaintiffs with a legitimate claim against Xanodyne can rest assured they will receive their "day in court."
If you suffered cardiac complications after taking Darvon, Darvocet, or another product containing propoxyphene, the Rottenstein Law Group wants to make sure that your voice is heard and your rights are protected. For more than 25 years, the lawyers of RLG have been helping those injured by a blameworthy corporation recover the financial compensation they are entitled to. To receive a complimentary review of your Darvon Darvocet lawsuit by an experienced RLG attorney, kindly visit this link: http://www.darvondarvocetlawsuit.com/
The United States constitution says that federal law trumps state law whenever there is a conflict of the two. Under President George W. Bush, however, several federal agencies attempted to extend this principle to include not only federal law, but federal regulations, such as those implemented by the FDA.
The argument basically went that if a product had won FDA (a federal agency) approval, this carried the same weight as federal law, effectively preempting state tort law. In one Supreme Court decision, the Bush Administration argued that a patient injured by an exploding balloon catheter could not sue the manufacturer under state law because the device had been approved by the FDA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the manufacturer.
But in 2009, The Supreme Court largely reversed directions. In Wyeth v. Levine, a Vermont woman who took the drug Phenergan sued its manufacturer, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth, after her arm was amputated due to tissue damage. She accused the drugmaker of failing to warn about Phenergan's dangers, a charge that Wyeth argued was preempted by the fact that the drug was FDA-approved. The Supreme Court ruled that just because a drug obtains FDA approval does not mean its manufacturer is absolved of the duty to sufficiently warn of its risk. And Obama, upon entering office, acted to further reverse Bush-era preemption policy by issuing a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies that recognized the important of state law for safeguarding the public.
The same "failure to warn" charges in Wyeth v. Levine can be found in the numerous lawsuits against Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, the company that distributes Darvon and Darvocet. Claimants are accusing the company of insufficiently warning of the drugs' cardiac dangers. Thanks to the shift in the way federal preemption is interpreted, plaintiffs with a legitimate claim against Xanodyne can rest assured they will receive their "day in court."
If you suffered cardiac complications after taking Darvon, Darvocet, or another product containing propoxyphene, the Rottenstein Law Group wants to make sure that your voice is heard and your rights are protected. For more than 25 years, the lawyers of RLG have been helping those injured by a blameworthy corporation recover the financial compensation they are entitled to. To receive a complimentary review of your Darvon Darvocet lawsuit by an experienced RLG attorney, kindly visit this link: http://www.darvondarvocetlawsuit.com/
Source...