This is about a current events.?
Makers of medical devices like implantable defibrillators or breast implant are immune from liability for personal injuries as long as the food and drug administrationapproved the device before it was marketed and it meets the agencys specifications, the supreme court ruled, in a 8-1 decision. Justice__________ was the lone dissenter
Please fill in the blank for me
Thank You
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/washington/21device.html?ei=5088&en=d9960719e4314472&ex=1361250000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
ANSWER: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the solitary dissenter, said the court had misconstrued Congress’s intent in adding the pre-emption clause to the 1976 law. The purpose, she said, was to prevent individual states from imposing their own premarket approval process on new medical devices. Devices were not regulated under federal law at the time, and California and other states had stepped in to fill the vacuum by setting up their own regulatory systems.
That was all that Congress had in mind, Justice Ginsburg said, not “a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices.” She said that Congress had passed the 1976 law “to protect consumer safety,” not to oust the states from “a domain historically occupied by state law.” The decision was at odds with the “central purpose” of the 1976 law, Justice Ginsburg added.
And if you want to read the opinion, go to this website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
and click on “Opinions”
But here is the PDF:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-179.pdf
Riegel vs. Medtronic
Certain Guidant Implantable Defibrillators Recalled (Aug 05)
|
|
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy $254.72 Description not available. |