Victory bittersweet for drug liability case victim
March 5, 2009 By JOHN CURRAN , Associated Press Writer
In this Oct. 7, 2008 file photo, Diana Levine sits at her home in Marshfield, Vt. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a $6.7 million jury award to a Levine, who lost her arm because of a botched injection of an anti-nausea medication. The court brushed away a plea that it limit lawsuits against drug makers. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)
(AP) -- A Vermont musician who lost her arm after a botched drug injection says the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold a $6.7 million verdict against the pharmaceutical company that made the drug is a victory for consumers.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Security chip that does encryption in PCs hacked
Feb 08, 2010 |
4.6 / 5 (17) |
13
Bad malaria pills in Africa raise resistance fears
Feb 08, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
Even if you're careful, drugs can end up in water
Feb 08, 2010 |
4 / 5 (1) |
1
Scientists complete the world's first in-depth study of the malaria parasite genome
Feb 05, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
Prius problems put spotlight on car electronics
Feb 04, 2010 |
4.8 / 5 (6) |
6
23 hours ago
But that cannot shield Wyeth from liability. I only wish I could tell from this article whether the reasoning finally relied on to establish their liability was plausible.
This is the big problem with this article: I cannot tell if it was plausible. The article has mentioned a few possibly relevant points, but omitted far too much.
Why, for example, is the drug manufacturer being held liable, but no liability is mentioned for the medical service provider who punctured her artery? Based on what little is reported in this article, I would say that that provider should bear if not all the liability, at least most of it.
But the article says absolutely nothing about this, as if we were supposed to take it for granted that the drug company should pay, simply because it has "deep pockets".