Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



A Congressional Response to Riegel v. Medtronic

From Congress Daily:

Democrats rankled by a recent Supreme Court decision shielding medical device companies from state liability lawsuits plan to unveil legislation to reverse the ruling, the first of many expected efforts to chop away at federal rules that restrict consumers' ability to sue.

House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman will introduce legislation before the Independence Day recess that would explicitly state that FDA regulation does not trump medical device patients' ability to seek damages under state law, a Pallone spokesman said.

A generally thorough article, although we would certainly disagree that business' strategy is to "bash the trial lawyers." The case for federal preemption can be argued quite effectively on its merits.

See previous posts, including Ted Frank on the Supreme Court's ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, James Copland in The Washington Post on federal preemption, and testimony to Waxman's committee by John Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute, who argued that the lack of federal preemption would create worse markets for pharmaceuticals and harm patients on the whole. (Cited in this post.)

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.