Find Court Cases > Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc.

Case Date: 10/12/2010
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Two hours after Hannah Bruesewitz received her six-month diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine in 1992, she started developing seizures and was hospitalized for weeks. Hannah has continued to suffer from residual seizure disorder that requires her to receive constant care, according to her parents. When their daughter was three-years-old, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz filed a petition seeking compensation for her injuries. One month prior to the petition, new regulations eliminated Hannah's seizure disorder from the list of compensable injuries. The family's petition was denied. Three years later, in 1998, the drug company Wyeth withdrew the type of vaccine used in Hannah's inoculation from the market.

The Bruesewitzes filed a lawsuit against Wyeth in state court in Pennsylvania. They claimed the drug company failed to develop a safer vaccine and should be held accountable for preventable injuries caused by the vaccine's defective design. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protected Wyeth from lawsuits over vaccine injury claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of Vaccine Injured Petitioners
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Kenneth W. Starr And Erwin Chemerinsky In Support of Petitioners Urging Reversal
  • Brief Amici Curiae of the American Academy of Pediatrics And 21 Other Physician And Public Health Organizations In Support of Respondent
  • Brief of Glaxosmithkline Llc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (formerly Known as Merck & Co., Inc.), And Sanofi Pasteur Inc. as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent
  • Brief of Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondent
    • Question 

    Can a federal law shield vaccine manufacturers from certain product liability lawsuits in state court that seek damages for serious health problems suffered by children?

    Argument Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc. - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc. - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 6 votes for Wyeth, 2 vote(s) against Legal provision: National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

    Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. The majority reasoned that Congress had set up a special vaccine court as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the vaccine market. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in consideration of the case.