12/03/08
Currently, rules are being reviewed by the administration that could affect such things as prescription drug labeling, water quality, and auto roof safety, according to the Office of the Federal Register.
According to the National Law Journal, ''Defense counsel are counting on the Bush administration to leave behind regulations that offer greater liability protection to manufacturers and less regulation. The plaintiffs' bar fears just that, warning that as many as 21 possible regulations could be a 'nightmare' for consumer safety and the environment.''
Attorney Gerie Voss with the American Association for Justice said, ''Lets say all 21 pass — that's a worst-case scenario. You will be looking at thousands of consumers who will be left with no recourse and manufacturers who have the ability to walk away with complete immunity.''
Pre-emption is at the forefront of what many believe these regulations are after. Several of the proposed regulations would allow for much less regulation in business and potentially offer immunity in lawsuits and the like. While some believe that this will help protect business from state law if they are in accordance with federal law, others differ.
The plaintiffs' bar is most concerned about the pre-emption language within the proposed rules, says the National Law Journal in an article published Dec. 1. The article says the rules include:
• A regulation that would require auto manufacturers to increase vehicle roof strength. This would be the first in 35 years. Under the new regulation, auto makers who meet this requirement will essentially be granted immunity from all lawsuits and plaintiffs lawyers believe vehicle roof strength standards are still too low, according to the American Association for Justice.
• A proposed rule by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revise warning labels regarding the use of prescription drugs during pregnancy and breast-feeding. This rule includes a pre-emption clause which could possibly offer drug manufacturers immunity and injured women may have no legal recourse.
• A proposed FDA rule that protects from liability for potentially dangerous, over-the-counter drug ingredients. The proposed rule changes the status of some over-the-counter drug ingredients making them subject to additional FDA approval. Drugs and ingredients that are FDA approved will mean their manufacturers are no longer responsible should the ingredients cause harm, says the American Association for Justice.
According to the National Law Journal:
''Plaintiffs attorney Mike Papantonio of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, a plaintiffs firm in Pensacola, Fla., doesn't like what he sees on the regulatory radar, either. But he's less worried about it. He believes the Obama administration will eventually reverse what might slip through before Inauguration Day. Meanwhile, Papantonio added, there will be plenty of firms like his ready to challenge any rules that do pass. 'I see that we're going to do what we always do, and that's fight back until someone gets in here and starts lashing out at these corporate thugs,' Papantonio said.''
Defense counsel argues against that saying that businesses should only be required to follow one set of rules. In other words, compliance with federal regulations should prevent them from state lawsuits.
|
