US Recall News

United States Recall News Alerts for Recalled Drugs, Food, Products, & Vehicles

MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Advertise
  • Full Recall News Archive
    • Top Story

      J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

      By Sandra Dalton, Staff Writer On January 6, 2020, Superior Court Judge Stephen Kaus announced that Johnson & Johnsons (J&J) had agreed to … [Read More...]

      Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces

      Summary Company Announcement Date: March 20, 2023 FDA Publish Date: … [Read More...]

    • More Safety Articles
    • Federal Preemption of State Product Liability Law
  • Drug Recalls
    • Abilify
    • Benicar
    • Fluoroquinolones
    • Invokana
    • Lipitor
    • Nuplazid
    • Opioids
    • OxyContin
    • Pradaxa
    • Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs)
    • Risperdal
    • SSRI
    • Symptoms & Side Effects
    • Taxotere
    • Testosterone
    • Uloric
    • Valsartan
    • Xarelto
    • Zofran
  • Medical Devices
    • 3M Earplug
    • 3T Heater-Cooler System
    • Bair Hugger
    • Bipolar Hip System
    • Essure
    • Hip Replacements
    • Implanon
    • IVC Filters
    • Hernia Mesh
    • Power Morcellators
    • Shoulder Implants
    • Transvaginal Mesh
  • Food Recalls
    • FDA Press Releases
    • USDA Press Releases
  • Auto Recalls
    • Air Bags
    • Ignitions
    • NHTSA Press Releases
    • Off-Road Utility Vehicles
    • Snowmobiles
    • Tires
  • Other Products
    • Asbestos
    • Baby Products
    • Pet Products
    • Roundup
    • Talcum Powder
    • Toy Recalls
You are here: Home / USRCN Editorial / Supreme Court Grants Immunity to Medical Device Manufacturers

Supreme Court Grants Immunity to Medical Device Manufacturers

February 21, 2008 By E. Sizemore 11 Comments

(Editorial Content)

The Supreme Court finally gave medical device makers their one true wish – Immunity from Lawsuits. Companies that produce medical devices like breast implants and implantable defibrillators now have federal protection against lawsuits arising from deaths or injuries associated with their products as long as the product has been approved for use by the FDA.

From the New York Times:
“Makers of medical devices like implantable defibrillators or breast implants are immune from liability for personal injuries as long as the Food and Drug Administration approved the device before it was marketed and it meets the agency’s specifications, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday. The 8-to-1 decision was a victory for the Bush administration, which for years has sought broad authority to pre-empt tougher state regulation. In 2004, the administration reversed longstanding federal policy and began arguing that “premarket approval” of a new medical device by the F.D.A. overrides most claims for damages under state law. Because federal law makes no provision for damage suits against device makers, injured patients have turned to state law and have won substantial awards.“

This is an absolute outrage! First the phone companies get immunity from lawsuits in which they illegally tapped the phone lines of American citizens. Now companies like Medtronic get immunity as long as the device was approved by the FDA. You might think this is as far as the Bush Administration’s hand-picked Supreme Joke… I mean Supreme Court Justices would take it. You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has accepted another FDA case for its next term. This one is on whether the FDA’s approval of a drug, as opposed to a device, pre-empts personal injury suits. In other words, as long as a drug gained FDA approval, it won’t matter how many people have died or been injured by the drug – pharmaceutical companies will get off without having to pay a dime to the victims and suffering families of the deceased, who in many cases may have lost their primary bread-winner.

This is what the United States of America is coming to. Corporate lobbyists have “convinced” our government that the interests of Big Business are more important than the safety of the American people. It makes me sick.

When Americans talk about reforming the legal system to do away with “frivolous lawsuits” they mean throwing cases out of court in which someone is suing a restaurant chain for millions because they found a hair in their soup, or burnt their tongue on the hot coffee. But the Bush Administration has used this legitimate call for reform as an excuse to grant immunity to their corporate pals. After all, if they have do go to court for killing thousands of people they won’t be able to make it to the BBQ down at the Crawford Ranch on Tuesday.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Related

Filed Under: USRCN Editorial

About E. Sizemore

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    February 21, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Well the next time you need a pacemaker to keep you from death…
    make your own.
    Nothing in this world is perfect when “man-made”. Hopefully, these companies can focus their profits into making even better equipment instead of having to put billions of dollars into reserves so they can pay for law suits.
    Get over it, man!!

    Reply
  2. Anonymous says

    February 21, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    I counter your claim that Americans are clamoring for tort reform over hair in soup issues. In fact, Americans are just parroting misinformation spread by corporate interests. In reality, Americans by and large have no idea what the pertinent details are in most cases.

    The McDonalds coffee lawsuit, which people often point to as an outrageous miscarriage of justice, was in fact a far more complex case that, when examined, yielded a lenient result.

    Lawsuits are what private citizens have in their arsenal to protect themselves against the abuses against them by corporate power. Now that the Fortune 500 is firmly entrenched as the fourth branch of government, they seek to take that power away from us. It won’t be too hard since as a nation we, by and large, lack critical thinking skills and tend to get our “informed” views from the very media sources owned by the same corporations.

    Reply
  3. NobleHeart says

    February 22, 2008 at 12:36 am

    It would seem that the FDA is going to have to pick up the tab from now on. I don’t know how much good it would do to sue the organization itself, though. I guess the good news is that they will be taking the brunt of the social stigma for this absolutely ludicrous piece of legislation – or at least they would in a sane world.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous says

    February 22, 2008 at 1:09 am

    To the First Guy:

    So you’re saying that because a product helps some people live it’s ok if it causes other people to die? The only thing this law does is take away the incentive for a company to do its best to ensure the safety of the medical devices they produce.

    When someone dies because a heart defibrillator goes haywire and shocks them to death, you don’t think the family should be allowed to sue the company who made it? What the hell is wrong with you?

    Reply
  5. Greg Bradley says

    February 25, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    I write as a person with an ICD who is 100% dependent. In other words without the pacemaker I die. I also have the defective Medtronic leads. I underwent a septal myectomy 16 years ago for HCM. I am always somewhat taken aback by the “tort reformers” who have little or no real life experience with what it is like to live ones life dependent upon a medical device. I have witnessed 1st hand Medtronics response to the lead recall. It has been too little too late and is characterized by deception and an all consuming attention to their bottom line, share price, executive compensation and NOT THE USERS OF THEIR DEVICES. I am disgusted by Medtronic, the Supreme Court and the Bush administration. Their behavior is appalling. My only hope is that one day they all have to live with a device or drug upon which their life depends, perhaps then they will wake up.

    Reply
  6. john says

    April 24, 2008 at 1:53 am

    Of course. Next it will be drug immunity. Big Pharma is bigger than we can even imagine. And we basically subsidize the world’s health care. My doctor says a tetanus shot costs him $12. The same exact drug company gets to sell it to Canada for $6, but my doctor can’t buy it from there. And that same drug costs 12 cents in India. Who exactly is paying for all of that? We are. Out of our pockets with deductibles and ridiculous copayments if we have coverage at all.

    If only someone had the balls to stand up to them. Not very likely.

    Reply
  7. JBB says

    April 24, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Bah. This is just an extension of “Good Samaritan” laws. If you give someone CPR on the street and, in the process, crack some of his ribs (which often happens even for the “pros”), should the victim or the family of the victim be allowed to sue you? The answer has been overwhelmingly “No” in the past.

    But if the drug companies or medical device companies try to help you, AND you willingly accept their help, if that attempt at helping actually harms you, SUE THEM?

    Bah. Only in cases of negligence (like, say, you know studies suggest your drug harms more than it helps and you willfully ignore and hide that and market it anyway) should such lawsuits be entertained.

    But finding out years later that the drug that helped your condition also caused some bad side-effect? I should sue you for soaking up my tax money in the court system. 😛

    Reply
  8. Robert Hale says

    November 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    What it really comes down to, is whether or not you have one of the devices inside your body. I have a stimulation system that was supposed to curb the pain in my back and legs. Medtronic should be held liable for presenting itself as a reputable, while using sub-standard products.
    Tell me why it’s right for them to enjoy themselves, when I am in constant pain, my life and quality of life reduced to an inkling. Oh yeah you don’t have the problem , so you sure as hell CAN’T GET IT.

    Reply
  9. Bob Carter says

    February 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    My husband had a defib put in in Dec 2006. Medtronics and FDA knew in March 2006 that there were defected leads, yet they still, instead of recalling back in March 06, placed it in my husbands heart. Yet we have no recourse. They got their money and we live on pins and needles everyday…..Just look at the Meditronic equipment that has been recalled and yet they continue to allow the (censored) higher ups to put things in people that they know is something wrong or could cause death. I hope they all and I am a Christian, have to go thru this some day…..

    Reply
  10. betty mcgraw says

    July 19, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    I have a pacemaker on my left side put in 2002. the they put in 2 ….35 inch electrical wires screw in to my left chest.. theyare now shocking me terribly andhave for 2 years….no body wants to put me in anew pacemaker, so I ma stuck suffering..
    2005 they put in a defribulator….. so if the pacemaker fails because of all this voltage it will shock my heart………….the promlem is it on recall defective wiring…………so its shocking me so bad the finally just shut it down….bit it just turned off,, no body will remove it either……so if these 2 medical devices dont kill me..I have to Kill my self……………. medtronic is saying dont remove these.. i dont what tosue any body I just want help tostop shocking me……….I think they had by one get one free
    some body help me

    Reply
  11. Miguel says

    March 28, 2011 at 7:29 am

    In 2 days, they will implant me an ICD. I’m scare beyond belief. But they insist the technology is so much better and I shouldn’t worry. Can I hear from someone that has a recent implant and give me some advice or comment or just tell me how is everything going?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Facebook
Thomas Roney LLC
Economic Consulting

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces

March 20, 2023 By The FDA

Voluntary Recall of One Lot of Kaytee® Wild Bird Food Birders Blend, 8 Lb Bag, Due to Elevated Levels of Aflatoxin

March 18, 2023 By The FDA

Perrigo Announces Voluntary Recall of Limited Quantity of Gerber® Good Start® SootheProTM Powdered Infant Formula

March 16, 2023 By The FDA

Hero Highlight

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Fruit Blend Because of Possible Health Risk

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

BC Gourmet USA, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Pine Nuts in Scarpetta Brand Pink Pesto

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

California Splendor, Inc. Recalls Kirkland Brand Bags of Frozen Organic Whole Strawberries Distributed by Costco in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and in Two San Diego Business Centers Because of Possible Health Risk

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Ecoxall Recalls Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda Beads and Potassium Hydroxide Flakes Due to Failure to Meet Child Resistant Packaging Requirements; Sold Exclusively on Amazon.com

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Ecoxall Recalls Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda Beads and Potassium Hydroxide Flakes Due to Failure to Meet Child Resistant Packaging Requirements; Sold Exclusively on Amazon.com

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Fredericksburg Farms Recalls 10 Ounce Scented Candles with Glass Lids Due to Laceration Hazard

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Recall News in Your Inbox

Enter your email address to receive automated recall news updates.

Recent Comments

  • Roger McGowan on ABH NATURE’S PRODUCTS, INC, ABH PHARMA, INC., and STOCKNUTRA.COM, INC. Issues Nationwide Recall of All Lots of Dietary Supplement Products
  • Kathryn Moore on FDA Wants Cancer Warning on Breast Implants
  • BRAD on Huge ATV Recall by Polaris – Sportsman and Scrambler
  • Crystal Anderson on Allergan Voluntarily Recalls BIOCELL® Textured Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders
  • Outsourcing Training on The Modern Marketing of Pain
  • SANDRA Collett on Processed Food Preservative Linked to Autism?
  • Eric Karsh on Health Risks of Roundup Go Well Beyond Cancer

Recent Posts

  • Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces
  • Voluntary Recall of One Lot of Kaytee® Wild Bird Food Birders Blend, 8 Lb Bag, Due to Elevated Levels of Aflatoxin
  • Perrigo Announces Voluntary Recall of Limited Quantity of Gerber® Good Start® SootheProTM Powdered Infant Formula
  • Mockingbird Expands Recall to Include Single Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
  • Updated – Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Blend Because of Possible Health Risk
  • Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Fruit Blend Because of Possible Health Risk
  • BC Gourmet USA, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Pine Nuts in Scarpetta Brand Pink Pesto
  • California Splendor, Inc. Recalls Kirkland Brand Bags of Frozen Organic Whole Strawberries Distributed by Costco in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and in Two San Diego Business Centers Because of Possible Health Risk
  • Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)
-- See More Recall News

Disclaimer: The information contained in these topics is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical or legal advice, it is provided for educational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider about any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Nothing contained in these topics is intended to be used for medical diagnosis or treatment.


ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The information provided on this website is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by the use of this site. It is not stated or implied that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in any particular field of law. No results are guaranteed, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This site is informational, only, not dispositive; it is up to you to decide whether a particular lawyer is right for you. Use of this site is subject to your agreement to these.


Copyright © 2023 Altrumedia · Terms of Service · Log in