Welcome! We regret to inform you that the Injury Board National News Desk has been discontinued. Feel free to browse around and enjoy our previously published articles, or visit The Injury Blog Network for the latest in personal injury news.

Federal Pre-emption Push In Final Days Of Bush Administration

Posted by Jane Akre
Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:56 PM EST
Category: On The Road, Major Medical, Protecting Your Family, In The Workplace
Tags: Federal Pre-emption, Preemption, Diana Levine, Seat Belts, Tort Reform, Bush Administration

Jay Lefkowitz revealed in this WSJ article as being the brains behind federal preemption.

LEARN MORE

 

IMAGE SOURCE:   State Department/ bio of Jay Lefkowitz/ State Department background on Jay Lefkowitz

 

 

The issue of federal pre-emption has huge implications, but its importance is often overlooked by the mainstream media. So it’s interesting that a discussion and background into federal pre-emption appears in the pages of the online Wall Street Journal.

Alicia Mundy reports, and appears on camera before a WSJ backdrop, that in the final weeks of the Bush administration, the president is keeping some promises made during past campaign – to encourage tort reform and shut down lawsuits.

The administration has written language in five or six different agencies covering about 50 different regulations, everything from motorcycle brakes to pain medication.  It could be the last shining accomplishment of his administration and comes in advance of a major defining decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, to be heard in early November.

The Department of Transportation added new pre-emption language October 8 that limits the number of seat belts car makers install and avoids lawsuits if someone is injured without one.  This is a rule now on the books and unable to be quickly undone, even if a new president doesn’t share the pre-emption push.   

In March, the Federal Railroad Administration added pre-emption wording concerning hazards from railroad tank cars. That rule has not been finalized.

The pre-emption argument by corporations, represented largely by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, aims to “neutralize plaintiff trial lawyer’s excessive influence” in its ability to file lawsuits.

The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform president, Lisa Rickard says to the WSJ, “It’s exceedingly difficult for companies to comply with 50 different state standards.”

The other side of the argument is represented by consumers groups and the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers and the idea that Americans should be able to seek remedies in court. Jon Haber, the association’s chief executive says, “This is the gift that keeps on giving for corporations.”

The article features a conversation with former Bush domestic policy adviser Jay Lefkowitz, who helped form the end-run strategy to protect corporations from product liability.  

Apparently the need was discussed early on in the Bush years, especially the “failure to warn” issue that consumers have used to sue corporations, as is the case of Diana Levine against Wyeth. 

In that case, musician Diana Levine of Vermont went to the emergency room with a migraine. To reduce nausea, she was given a drug made by Wyeth which was delivered by IV Push, a method Wyeth did not warn against in its label. Levine lost her arm to gangrene.

She won before a jury and was awarded more than $6 million, but Wyeth is appealing the issue to the highest court in the land.

The Bush administration avoided going to Congress to get bills passed because of pressure from consumers and lawyers. They avoided going through the courts because they might lose.

Instead, Lefkowitz says, “There was already authority within federal government statutes and regulations to start the reform process without legislation.”

Even though Americans before the Bush years, purchased cars made under federal standards and drugs with product inserts approved by the FDA, Mr. Lefkowitz now says, “You can’t ask companies to follow different standards.”

Expect the Levine case decision to impact consumer’s ability to file product liability lawsuits and failure to warn litigation against all products that have the potential to injure consumers. #


No Comments

Comments for this article are closed.

About the National News Desk

Our mission is to seek the complete truth and provide a full and fair account of the events and issues that surround personal safety, accident prevention, and injury recovery.  We are committed to serving the public with honesty and integrity in these efforts.

Hurt in an accident? Contact an Injury Board member

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Add the National News Desk to your favorite RSS reader

Add to Google Reader Add to myYahoo Add to myMSN Add to Bloglines Add to Newsgator Add to Netvibes Add to Pageflakes