Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc. (09-152)

argument 09-152

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal dispute in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth about?

John G. Roberts 0:06

We'll hear argument this afternoon in case zero nine one fifty two, Brussowitz versus Wyatt. Mr. Frederick.

James W. Frederick 0:12

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This case involves a vaccine designed in the nineteen forties that was administered to Hannah Brusowitz in nineteen ninety two, some thirty years after scientists discovered a safer way to design the pertussis component of the DDP vaccine. The Third Circuit held that the Brusowitzes could not pursue a design defect claim under state law. invoking the preemption principle and claiming that the uh Vaccine Act of nineteen eighty six preempted the Brusowitz state law claim. That holding is an error for three reasons. First, the Court overlooked the numerous provisions of the Act protecting manufacturers from liability. But it did not Um expressly dis uh preempt design defect claims.

James W. Frederick 1:03

Second, the court misconstrued the word unavoidable in section twenty two B one's federal law defense. And third. The Court adopted a policy that exposes children to unnecessary safety risks. With respect to the first reason, in the nineteen eighty six Act, Congress created a program, the Vaccine Programme, that was funded by surcharges on the vaccines that users used and out of that fund designed a program to pay compensation to persons who were injured by vaccine related acts. Congress also provided a mechanism for exhaustion through the vaccine court program before a person claiming injury could pursue a state law cause of action. In creating federal law defenses to the state law that was designed to govern such actions, Congress established certain defenses.

James W. Frederick 2:00

But all of those defenses apply on a case by case basis. There are no absolute provisions that preclude a state law claim. The Third Circuit misunderstood that basic principle. The defenses that the Vaccine Act created for manufacturers include such things as a regulatory compliance defense for failure to warn claims. a learned intermediary doctrine that's instituted at a national level

John G. Roberts 2:26

The imposition is a good idea. What's the point you're trying to make that because there are a whole bunch of uh provisions designed to help manufacturers, that this one can't possibly also be designed to help manufacturers?

James W. Frederick 2:40

My point is that when one looks at the specific language of twenty two B one against the backdrop of these other provisions, it's clear what Congress was intending was to enact a national defense, but not to displace state law completely. And the question presented is whether, on a case-by-case basis, the design defect claims that have been brought by the Brusowitzes are displaced as a matter of law.

John G. Roberts 3:06

I would have thought the argument would go the other way, that because they set up a compensation scheme, that was a good sign that they didn't want to allow state law claims.

James W. Frederick 3:15

And if one looks, Mr Chief Justice, at sections twenty one, twenty two and twenty three of the Act, what twenty one provides is that the claimant can elect not to accept the vaccine court judgment. Section twenty-two provides the standards of responsibility and Section twenty-three provides the mechanisms for trial of the state law claim. And twenty three E provides that the evidence of the vaccine table and what happens in the vaccine court shall not be admissible in the state law claim.

Samuel A. Alito 3:49

Section twenty two um B one refers to side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. If The term unavoidable was intended to carry its ordinary meaning What need was there for the rest of that language, even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by uh proper directions and warnings. If it was improperly prepared or didn't have proper directions and warnings, then the side effects are are avoidable. So that language is surplusage, isn't it? If if unavoidable really means unavoidable?

James W. Frederick 4:29

What uh Congress was attending to do, Mr uh Justice Alito, was with the word unavoidable to use a word that had a settled meaning at the common law.