http://www.pizaazz.com/2009/05/05/pulling-the-plug-on-sprint-fidelis/ Healthcare News & More Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:04:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.pizaazz.com/2009/05/05/pulling-the-plug-on-sprint-fidelis/comment-page-1/#comment-910 Marilyn Mann Wed, 06 May 2009 00:47:58 +0000 http://www.pizaazz.com/?p=4572#comment-910 Looked at from the point of view of statutory interpretation, the two cases (Riegel v. Medtronic and Wyeth v. Levine) are not inconsistent. The statute at issue in Riegel had an express preemption clause, which the Court interpreted to require preemption. By contrast, Wyeth was an "implied preemption" case. The statute did not have a preemption clause. The argument was that the statutory scheme required preemption, a much harder argument to make, hence the Court's holding in Wyeth that state failure-to-warn litigation is not preempted by federal regulation of drugs. Looked at from the point of view of statutory interpretation, the two cases (Riegel v. Medtronic and Wyeth v. Levine) are not inconsistent. The statute at issue in Riegel had an express preemption clause, which the Court interpreted to require preemption. By contrast, Wyeth was an “implied preemption” case. The statute did not have a preemption clause. The argument was that the statutory scheme required preemption, a much harder argument to make, hence the Court’s holding in Wyeth that state failure-to-warn litigation is not preempted by federal regulation of drugs.

]]>