Design-defect Claims Against Vaccine Makers Preempted, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court on Tuesday shielded the nation's vaccine makers from being sued by parents who say their children suffered severe side effects from the drugs.

By a 6-2 vote, the court upheld a federal law that offers compensation to these victims through a special tribunal but closes the courthouse door to lawsuits.

The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available, and that federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 "reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, referring to the Food and Drug Administration.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the threat of lawsuits provides an incentive for vaccine manufacturers to constantly monitor and improve their products.

The decision "leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one - neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries - ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements," Sotomayor wrote.

The case was brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz on behalf of their daughter Hannah, 18. Hannah began to have seizures as an infant after receiving the third of five scheduled doses of Wyeth's Tri-Immunol diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. The company, now owned by Pfizer, has taken the drug off the market.

The 1986 federal law said that all such claims must first go to a special tribunal commonly called the "Vaccine Court." The program has awarded nearly $2 billion for vaccine-injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989. It is funded by a tax on immunizations.

But the tribunal ruled against the Bruesewitzes, saying they had not proved that the vaccine harmed Hannah, who will need life-long care.

The couple then sued under Pennsylvania tort law. The company had the case moved to federal court, and judges have consistently ruled that the suit cannot proceed, because federal law prohibits claims against "design defects" in vaccines.

The justices at oral argument debated ambiguous wording in the federal law. It says that no vaccine maker can be held liable for death or injuries arising from "side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

Scalia said the word "unavoidable" would be meaningless "if a manufacturer could be held liable for failure to use a different design."

Sotomayor read the language to mean the opposite, and said "text, structure and legislative history compel the conclusion that Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines."

The case is Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.

FDA to reclassify Medical Device Data Systems

The FDA has published a final rule to reclassify Medical Device Data Systems (MDDS) from Class III devices requiring premarket approval to Class I devices regulated under much less stringent general controls.

“An MDDS is a device that is intended to transfer, store, convert from one format to another according to preset specification, or display medical device data,” according to the rule. “An MDDS acts only as the mechanism by which medical device data can be transferred, stored, converted or displayed. An MDDS does not modify the data or modify the display of the data. An MDDS by itself does not control the functions or parameters of any other medical device. An MDDS can only control its own functionality. This device is not intended to provide or be used in connection with active patient monitoring. Any product that is intended for a use beyond the use (or functions) identified in this final classification rule is not an MDDS and is not addressed by this rule.”

The final MDDS rule will apply to “all manufacturers,” the FDA says. Critically, this includes hospitals, health care facilities or any other organization that does any of the following:

• Makes any modifications to the MDDS that are outside the parameters of the original manufacturer’s specifications for the device, for purposes of the user’s clinical practice or otherwise for commercial distribution.
• Purchases hardware or software and modifies it to transfer, store, convert or display medical device data for clinical use.
• Develops in-house software with an intended use consistent with an MDDS.
• Develops an in-house system, using multiple components of devices, that has an intended use consistent with an MDDS.

Other key points from the preview to the MDDS final rule include the following:

• The rule does not apply to electronic health record (EHR), personal health record (PHR), computerized physician order entry (CPOE), e-prescribing or word processing systems. Laboratory information systems and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are not medical device data systems either.
• An MDDS can covert data to the HTML; PDF; or Health Level Seven International, or HL7, data formats. However, “an MDDS may not otherwise convert, alter, modify or interpret the data that is received from a medical device,” the FDA said.
• Devices that transfer information for the purpose of information exchange, or that can generate or manipulate data on their own, are not considered medical device data systems.
• Such devices as glucose monitors, blood pressure cuffs and active patient monitors are not MDDS. These are Class III devices because they directly support and sustain a patient’s life; as such, they remain subject to stricter regulatory control, as well as to premarket approval.
• Devices intended for use by people who are not health care professionals (data entry clerks, for example) count as MDDS, though the FDA reserves the right, “if, through normal reporting mechanisms or otherwise, FDA determines that the use of these devices by someone other than a health care professional poses an unreasonable risk of illness or injury.”