ShareThis Page
The Bruesewitz ruling: Necessary & proper |

The Bruesewitz ruling: Necessary & proper

| Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:00 a.m

The plight of Mt. Lebanon’s Hannah Bruesewitz is heartbreaking. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court rightly upheld federal law by ruling that her parents can’t sue the maker of the vaccine they blame for her seizures and developmental problems.

They claim defective design of a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine. The case went first to a special compensation system — created by a 1986 federal law and funded by a vaccine-dose excise tax — that essentially indemnifies vaccine makers against such claims.

After the parents’ claim was rejected there, they sued in Pennsylvania state court. The vaccine maker moved the case to a federal court, which ruled that the 1986 federal law pre-empted the state lawsuit. A federal appellate court — and now, the U.S. Supreme Court — agreed.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the 6-2 majority said the 1986 federal law pre-empts “all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers … for vaccine side effects.” (Justice Elena Kagan, who worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general, recused herself.)

And then there’s the fact that the Bruesewitzes never proved their claim. In ruling as it did, the high court preserved the 1986 law’s necessary intent and effect — protecting public health against vaccine litigation.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.