HA525 Unit 1 Discussion 2/3

In two different paragraph with no less than 100 words give your personal opinion to Brenda Newcomb and  Betty Daniels-Peterson 

 Betty Daniels-Peterson 
     The Wyeth case is a case that argued October 12th, 2010 and Decided February 22nd, 2011: This case was created because a vaccine injury was imposed on a child, this child became paralyzed after receiving the vaccination. There was an increase in the vaccine which constituted injury to the child. The child’s name was Hannah Bruesewitz’s,  Hannah’s parents filed a vaccine-injury petition in the court of Federal Claims, stating that their child Hannah became disabled after receiving a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine. At the time the vaccination was given to Hannah it appears that the company or laboratories owing the vaccine was manufactured by Lederle Laboratories; which is now owned by respondent Wyeth).
       It appears that the courts denied their claim, they then elected to reject the unfavorable judgement and filed a suit in Pennsylvania State court, which at this time they alleged defective design of Lederle vaccine which caused their daughter’s Hannah disability. Wyeth thought it was in his best interest to move this case to Federal District Court, this is where Wyeth Summary Judgement was granted. It was due to the fact that Pennsylvania law was preempted, causing the manufacturer not to be held liable in a civil action for damages.
     On the other hand there was a precedent of law associated with the same type case where a vaccine related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine related injury; which resulted in death associated with the administration of vaccine, and this was after October 1st, 1988 if it resulted in death form any sign effect; it was unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper direction and warning. Now under this section (a) Section 300aa-22(b)(1) text suggested that if the vaccine design was not open to any question pertaining to tort action. It goes on to say that a manufacture can be held liable for failure to use a different design.
     One of the reasons I fine is why the judge did not held Wyeth liable is one, because Hannah borned on October 20, 1991 and Wyeth purchased Lederle in 1994, and stopped manufacturing the vaccine in 1998. The vaccine received it’s approval in 1948, this give us a lot to think about; and to deliberate about as well.
     If I was the Judge I would take into consideration a lot things such as, I would look a the precedents of law, the condition of the child prior to vaccination, yes children must be vaccinated; however if the vaccination caused my child to become disable, I would pursue a law suit as well, and I would fight to win. If I was the Judge I would see to it that the manufactory of the vaccine is responsible for their actions. I also feel that Wyeth should have made Wyeth stop with the manufacturing of the vaccine before 1994, in fact all medication that cause complication should be removed  right away without hesitation.

Brenda Newcomb 
A couple of hours after Bruesewitz’s daughter received a DTP vaccine in the year of 1992, their daughter began having seizures and was admitted to the hospital for several weeks. Their daughter continuously suffers from a lingering disorder of seizures, that has required the daughter in receiving care on a constant level. The Bruesewitz’s filed a petition, when their daughter was three, seeking compensation for their daughter’s injuries after receiving the DTP vaccine. Thirty days prior to the Bruesewitz’s petition, a new regulation eliminated their daughter’s disorder of seizures from a listing of compensable injuries and caused their petition to be denied. In 1998, Wyeth withdrew the vaccine that was used for the immunization of the Bruesewitz’s daughter, from the market. The Bruesewitzes then filed another lawsuit against the drug company of Wyeth, in Pennsylvania’s state court. They claimed that Wyeth had failed in developing a safe vaccine and the drug company should be accountable in preventing injuries from a defective vaccine. A dismissal of the lawsuit was ruled by a judge in federal court, in which, he ruled “that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protected Wyeth from lawsuits over vaccine injury claims” (Oyez, n.d.).
The legal duties in the case that were breached are based on duty the manufacturers should not hurt the consumers with their products.  Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market without a warning, that in turn, caused a consumer injury, after normal usage. Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market, which could have been safer. And Wyeth placed the vaccine on the market that was not correctly manufactured. The court of Supreme declared the low court decision from an opinion formed by Justice Scalia. The majority rationale that Congress brought about a vaccine court in providing compensation for the children who are injured, in which it will not drive the manufacturers of drugs out of the market of the vaccine. Justice Breyer filed an agreement opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion of dissent and was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Kagan had no parts in any considerations in the case. I do agree with the reasoning of the court in this case of the DTP vaccine. If I was the judge, in this case, I would have ruled the same exact way that the judge did in this case (Supreme court, n.d).
Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth LLC, fka Wyeth, Inc.: Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-152

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

At Solution Essays, we are determined to deliver high-quality papers to our clients at a fair price. To ensure this happens effectively, we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees. This guarantees will ensure you enjoy using our website which is secure and easy to use.

Money-back guarantee

Most companies do not offer a money-back guarantee but with Solution Essays, it’s either a quality paper or your money back. Our customers are assured of high-quality papers and thus there are very rare cases of refund requests due to quality concern.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

All our papers are written from scratch and according to your specific paper instructions. This minimizes any chance of plagiarism. The papers are also passed through a plagiarism-detecting software thus ruling out any chance of plagiarism.

Read more

Free-revision policy

We offer free revisions in all orders delivered as long as there is no alteration in the initial order instruction. We will revise your paper until you are fully satisfied with the order delivered to you.

Read more

Privacy policy

All data on our website is stored as per international data protection rules. This ensures that any personal data you share with us is stored safely. We never share your personal data with third parties without your consent.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

Ordering and sending money to us is an indication that you are purchasing our products and services. To have business talks laid out in the official language, you can check on our terms and conditions and get more information about this.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code: LEMONADEPlace Order