Cross posted by permission from Legal Planet.
Rick earlier posted about the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This week, the Ninth Circuit may finally have brought the litigation that followed that spill to a close. You may recall that last year the U.S. Supreme Court heard Exxon’s challenge to the punitive damages award against it, which had been set by the Ninth Circuit (after two remands to the trial court) at $2.5 billion. An equally divided Court upheld the Ninth Circuit’s view that punitive damages could be awarded in a maritime case, but ruled by 5-3 that, in the circumstances of this case, punitive damages should not be awarded in an amount exceeding a 1:1 ratio with the compensatory damages.
On remand to the Ninth Circuit, the parties agreed to a punitive damages award of $507.5 million, precisely equalling the amount of the compensatory damages award. That didn’t entirely resolve the dispute, however. Exxon contended that interest on the punitive damages judgment should run only from 2008, when the judgment on the agreed amount of punitive damages was finally entered after the Supreme Court’s decision, while the plaintiffs thought it should run from 1996, when the original judgment awarding punitive damages was entered. Exxon also contended that it was entitled to recover $70 million in costs for pursuing its appeal of the punitive damages award because, although it eventually agreed it was liable for some punitive damages, the circuitous appeal reduced the initial award by 90% (from $5 billion to roughly $500 million).
In this latest decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs on both counts. The court agreed unanimouslythat interest should run from the initial judgment date. Judge Kleinfeld dissented on the question of whether Exxon should be able to recover the costs of its appeal.
Full textOn Wednesday, by the stroke of a pen, President Obama reversed a major Bush administration policy, striking another blow for good government. For eight years the Bush administration sought to accomplish tort reform by stealth and indirection with several agencies proclaiming in preambles to regulations that the regulations preempted state tort law. These agencies included the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and most notably the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA's broadest claim -- that its drug labeling regulation preempted state tort law -- was rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this year in Wyeth v. Levine.
In a November 2008 White Paper, CPR Member Scholars called for the President to amend or strengthen the existing Executive Order on Federalism to reverse this Bush policy and to re-establish the presumption that federal regulations protecting health, safety, and the environment do not preempt state tort law. The President has now done this.
Full textAvery DeGroh, a three-year old from Illinois, had a defibrillator implanted in her heart to deal with a congenital condition called long QT syndrome. It was a brand-new model with a specially designed wire (or lead ) that is thinner and easier for doctors to install. Unfortunately, due to a problem with the new lead, one day the defibrillator shocked Avery unnecessarily nine times, sending jolts of electricity through her young heart. She was rushed to the hospital and had the device removed. She's doing well with a portable defibrillator now, but the episode was just the beginning of a new battle for her parents. Removing the device, of course, was incredibly expensive. But even though the company that manufactured the defective defibrillator, Medtronic, recalled the device, it refused to reimburse Avery's parents for any of the costs associated with getting a replacement since they didn't use a Medtronic-branded alternative. Unfortunately for Avery and her parents, the Supreme Court's February 2008 ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic prevents them from suing Medtronic to receive compensation for her injuries or medical costs. Full text
Center for Progressive Reform Policy Analyst Matthew Shudtz blogs on regulatory preemption and medical devices: Last week's Supreme Court decision in Wyeth v. Levine protected consumers' longstanding right to take pharmaceutical companies to court for failing to properly warn patients and their doctors about the risks posed by the drugs they market. Unfortunately, people injured by faulty medical devices don't have the same right following last year's Riegel v. Medtronic decision. Full text
Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Nina Mendelson reacts to the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth vs. Levine. Full text
CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity and William Buzbee discuss their two books on federal preemption issues -- McGarity's The Preemption War: When Federal Bureaucracies Trump Local Juries, and Buzbee's Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question.' Third entry. Full text
CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity and William Buzbee discuss their two books on federal preemption issues -- McGarity's The Preemption War: When Federal Bureaucracies Trump Local Juries, and Buzbee's Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question.' Third entry. Full text
CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity and William Buzbee discuss their two books on federal preemption issues -- McGarity's The Preemption War: When Federal Bureaucracies Trump Local Juries, and Buzbee's Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question.' Second entry. Full text
CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity and William Buzbee discuss their two books on federal preemption issues -- McGarity's The Preemption War: When Federal Bureaucracies Trump Local Juries, and Buzbee's Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question. Full text
Center for Progressive Reform Media Consultant blogs on CPSC and unsafe toys. Full text