The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in an important pre‐emption case, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which asks whether the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 pre‐empts state law “design defect” suits brought against vaccine manufacturers. I’ve discussed this complex case more fully in an op‐ed at the Daily Caller, but in a nutshell, Congress passed the Act to address the risks inherent in vaccinations through a federal no‐fault “Vaccine Court” rather than through the vagaries of state tort law. It did so because the inability to make vaccines entirely safe, plus uncertainty surrounding causation, coupled with the penchant of state juries to discount those issues in favor of sympathetic plaintiffs, had rendered most manufacturers unwilling to produce needed vaccines at reasonable costs.
In drafting the statute, however, Congress left things unclear, to put it charitably. Thus, the Court will have to make sense of this language:
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine‐related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine… if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
Although the Act allows victims to sue over manufacturing defects, conduct that would subject a manufacturer to punitive damages, and a manufacturer’s failure to exercise due care, nowhere does it define “unavoidable”—and there’s the nub of the matter. In the case before the Court, a three‐judge Third Circuit panel decided unanimously for Wyeth, as did the district court. But in another case five months earlier, a nine‐member Georgia Supreme Court, facing similar facts, decided unanimously for the plaintiff.
And behind it all is the question whether Congress should have pre‐empted state law in the first place. It probably should have here, but that’s a close call. And the implications for ObamaCare are not absent in this case, which could be a portent of the complex and uncertain litigation that lies ahead if the scheme is not repealed. As I say at the outset of my post, hard cases make bad law, but bad law too makes hard cases, and this is one. Does anyone think that ObamaCare is anything but bad law? We’ll know once we figure out “what’s in it,” as the lady said.