NJ Judge Opens Door By Crashing Through The Constitution
N.J. Court Opens Door to Accutane Suits by Out-of-State Users
This may be a case of judical activism. This judge has gone against the established procedures and jurisdictional precedents that have long been a part of American jurisprudence. The recent Bush administration approach has been to limit all pharmaceutical law suits that have undergone FDA approval. This approach by the Bush administration is as much an activist and power grabbing approach as is the approach employed by the NJ judge.
The US Constitution gives federal jurisdiction over cases in law and/or equity to the federal courts when a case involves parties from different states. The matters at hand are supposed to be heard in a federal court and protecting the rights of the citizens--real persons as opposed to "fictitious persons" (i.e. big business)--are supposed to be paramount in the eyes of the law. The federal courts are supposed to consider the Constitution, federal statutes, state statutes, federal administrative law, and state administrative law--in that order of precedence and priority--in cases involving disputes between citizens and/or parties having legal standing from different states.
The extention of New Jersey jurisdiction of claims of harm actually occurring in Michigan is in error... as is the effort by the Bush administration to limit the libaility of a pharmaceutical company by administrative decree.
Citing New Jersey's interest in ensuring that companies in the state make safe products, the state's Appellate Division has reinstated a suit by an out-of-state man who claimed Hoffmann-La Roche's acne drug Accutane caused him to become so depressed that he attempted suicide.
The judges reversed a lower court's ruling that because the plaintiff is from Michigan, that state's product liability statute should control. Michigan offers almost absolute immunity for companies if the drug has U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
Since New Jersey's statute says that companies with FDA approval have only a rebuttable presumption against liability, the state is a far more plaintiff-friendly forum and last week's ruling, in Rowe v. Hoffmann-La Roche, A-4522-03T3, could invite more Accutane suits.
This may be a case of judical activism. This judge has gone against the established procedures and jurisdictional precedents that have long been a part of American jurisprudence. The recent Bush administration approach has been to limit all pharmaceutical law suits that have undergone FDA approval. This approach by the Bush administration is as much an activist and power grabbing approach as is the approach employed by the NJ judge.
The US Constitution gives federal jurisdiction over cases in law and/or equity to the federal courts when a case involves parties from different states. The matters at hand are supposed to be heard in a federal court and protecting the rights of the citizens--real persons as opposed to "fictitious persons" (i.e. big business)--are supposed to be paramount in the eyes of the law. The federal courts are supposed to consider the Constitution, federal statutes, state statutes, federal administrative law, and state administrative law--in that order of precedence and priority--in cases involving disputes between citizens and/or parties having legal standing from different states.
The extention of New Jersey jurisdiction of claims of harm actually occurring in Michigan is in error... as is the effort by the Bush administration to limit the libaility of a pharmaceutical company by administrative decree.
posted by Jim Downey at 6:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home