Vermont consumer rights appeal supreme court
A Vermont woman has become the focus of a US Supreme Court case, which may determine consumers' right to sue for dangerous products.
This lady is Diana Levin, a musician. She lost her right arm because of a medical disaster.
The story of John Tommy Tam of VPR stretches from the remote path of Marshfield to the marble hall of the Supreme Court.
Eight years ago, Diana Levine was treated for migraine and her arm was amputated a few weeks later.
A local clinic gave her an injection to treat migraine-related nausea. But the drug used-it's called phenanthrene, produced by Wyeth Pharmaceutical Company-will cause irreversible damage if it comes into contact with arterial blood.
That's what Levin did.
"If it comes into contact with any trace of arterial blood, that's it. It goes directly into your blood, directly into your capillaries, and then coagulates crazily. ''
Her wrists and hands were blackened by tissue necrosis. Gangrene has begun. Doctors tried to stop the spread of dead tissue, but there was nothing they could do.
"I was shocked when I was told that I would have an amputation. ''
On a sunny autumn day in Marshfield, Levin sat at the picnic table and told the story. She said that she finally underwent another operation and spent several months in the hospital. Her right arm is now just below the elbow.
"He tried to save my wrist with the first amputation ... I was still in terrible pain. We watched it climb up, black and rotten, and they drew a dotted line on my arm. He came in and said,' This is impossible, I must do it again. I said, "Okay." ''
Levin said she didn't have to lose her arm. She said Wyeth's own records showed that the company knew-but failed to adequately warn-about the serious risks this drug posed to her.
"Give something just to be disgusting, and then find out later that they know this may happen. ''
Diana Levin's medical disaster is now the number one commercial case in the US Supreme Court.
This legal adventure began with a lawsuit filed in a Vermont court. A jury in Washington County awarded Wyeth $6 million. The company appealed and the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the jury's verdict.
Wyeth then filed a lawsuit with the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case next month.
Wyeth officials did not comment on this matter. The company provided a statement from its lawyer Bert Rein, who defended the case in Vermont. Lei Xiaoshan said-quote:
"Vermont's decision puts the company in a dilemma. Does it comply with federal laws, or does it comply with state laws, risk being investigated by the FDA, and commit a felony-mislabeling drugs and labels approved by the FDA? "
The legal principle that Wyeth wants the High Court to implement is called preemptive right. Business groups and the Bush administration believe that if products are approved by the federal government, consumers should not go to state courts to seek relief.
But many independent voices disagree.
"You know, the review by the Food and Drug Administration is very good, but it is never absolute. ''
Dr Gregory Kaufman is a physician and executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. He says patient safety depends on two systems: FDA review and state court action. He said that if Wyeth wins the preemptive strike, the result will be a more unsafe drug.
"What we are worried about is that if the possibility of product liability litigation is basically ruled out in advance, and pharmaceutical companies are immune to this product liability litigation, then the whole layer of supervision that has always existed will disappear, and we will only have one layer of supervision. ''
Cheryl Hanna, who teaches constitutional law at Vermont Law School, said that Levin's case is one of the most important cases heard by the High Court in 10 years.
"All those people who are injured by drugs or other medical equipment in some way, they can't go to the state court to sue, claiming that the drug injury is negligence, failing to warn them of the danger, and putting defective products on the market. They will basically be foreclosed. ''
Diana Levin said that she wanted to win, not only because she was permanently disfigured, lost most of her livelihood and needed money for treatment.
(Levin) "I mean, they obviously can't give me my arm back. But they changed my life irrevocably, which didn't have to happen because they knew all the cases that happened before me. Besides, they should change the label so that it won't happen to others. ''
The Supreme Court will hear the case on 1 1 March 3rd.
In VPR News, I'm John Tommy Tam, reporting from Montpellier.