RE: article in Atlanta Journal Constitution

[Guest guest]

So does this now to go the supreme court if the vaccine company

files an appeal? Thank you Betsy, this is huge! -

PS. Any one have a run down on previous ties to pharma companies

for the supreme court justices?

In a landmark decision, the

state high court unanimously ruled that Marcelo and Carolyn

Ferrari’s lawsuit is not barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine

Injury Compensation Act. The court upheld a prior decision by the Georgia Court

of Appeals, which was the first appellate court in the nation to make such a

ruling.

Here's the tiny

http://tinyurl.com/42zur8

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of bhensonblack

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:02 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: article in Atlanta Journal Constitution

Hi all...

My sister-in-law sent this to me today. Sorry, I don't know how to do

a tiny url

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/10/06/vaccine_aut

ism_lawsuit.html?cxtype=rss & cxsvc=7 & cxcat=13

Betsy

[Guest guest]

For those who can get attachments here is a pdf of the AHP v. Ferrari decision issued today by the Supreme Court of Georgia:

An important part of the Court's holding is this:Although the Court of Appeals erred in holdingthat Bates precludes the use of legislative history,we nevertheless affirm the judgment of the Court ofAppeals because a full examination of both the textof 42 USC § 300aa-22 ((1) and the congressionalintent behind it show that the Vaccine Act does notpreempt all design defect claims, but insteadprovides that a vaccine manufacturer cannot be heldliable for defective design if it is determined, on acase-by-case basis, that the injurious side effects ofthe particular vaccine were unavoidable. J. KrakowLaw Office of J. Krakow, P.C.1205 lin Avenue, Suite 110Garden City, New York 11530 (NYC) (fax)rkrakow@...So does this now to go the supreme court if the vaccine company files an appeal? Thank you Betsy, this is huge! -PS. Any one have a run down on previous ties to pharma companies for the supreme court justices? In a landmark decision, the state high court unanimously ruled that Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari’s lawsuit is not barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. The court upheld a prior decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, which was the first appellate court in the nation to make such a ruling.Here's the tinyhttp://tinyurl.com/42zur8 From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of bhensonblackSent: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:02 PMTo: EOHarm Subject: article in Atlanta Journal Constitution Hi all...My sister-in-law sent this to me today. Sorry, I don't know how to do a tiny url http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/10/06/vaccine_autism_lawsuit.html?cxtype=rss & cxsvc=7 & cxcat=13Betsy

[Guest guest]

Sorry to respond to my own message, but this part of the decision, rejecting decisions that have found that the vaccine act preempts state civil action, specifically contemplates resolution of this issue in the US Supreme Court:Therefore, although the Vaccine Actprovides for limited no-fault compensation, construingsubsection ((1) as set forth in Bruesewitz,Sykes, Blackmon, and Militrano“would ‘have theperverse effect of granting complete [tort] immunityfrom design defect liability to an entire industry....’[Cit.]”Doyle v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft,267 Ga. 574, 576-577 (481 S.E.2d518) (1997) (quoting Medtronic v. Lohr, supra at487(IV)). In the absence of any clear and manifestcongressional purpose to achieve that result, wemust reject such a far-reaching interpretation of 42USC § 300aa-22 ((1), at least until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken on the issue.For those who can get attachments here is a pdf of the AHP v. Ferrari decision issued today by the Supreme Court of Georgia: <2008_10_06_AHP_v_Ferrari_Thimerosal_autism.pdf>An important part of the Court's holding is this:Although the Court of Appeals erred in holdingthat Bates precludes the use of legislative history,we nevertheless affirm the judgment of the Court ofAppeals because a full examination of both the textof 42 USC § 300aa-22 ((1) and the congressionalintent behind it show that the Vaccine Act does notpreempt all design defect claims, but insteadprovides that a vaccine manufacturer cannot be heldliable for defective design if it is determined, on acase-by-case basis, that the injurious side effects ofthe particular vaccine were unavoidable. J. KrakowLaw Office of J. Krakow, P.C.1205 lin Avenue, Suite 110Garden City, New York 11530 (NYC) (fax)rkrakow@...So does this now to go the supreme court if the vaccine company files an appeal? Thank you Betsy, this is huge! -PS. Any one have a run down on previous ties to pharma companies for the supreme court justices? In a landmark decision, the state high court unanimously ruled that Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari’s lawsuit is not barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. The court upheld a prior decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, which was the first appellate court in the nation to make such a ruling.Here's the tinyhttp://tinyurl.com/42zur8 From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of bhensonblackSent: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:02 PMTo: EOHarm Subject: article in Atlanta Journal Constitution Hi all...My sister-in-law sent this to me today. Sorry, I don't know how to do a tiny url http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/10/06/vaccine_autism_lawsuit.html?cxtype=rss & cxsvc=7 & cxcat=13Betsy J. KrakowLaw Office of J. Krakow, P.C.1205 lin Avenue, Suite 110Garden City, New York 11530 (NYC) (fax) (Mobile)rkrakow@...

[Guest guest]

So this puts in question every other vaccine case previously denied

the right to sue in court?  Or just those in Georgia specifically? 

I was doing some research and some of the Justices have had to step

down on several issues when they have a conflict of interest, ie pharma stock. 

Some of these recently have made the results a tie and if there is a tie the

decision the state court came to holds up.  Justice has pfizer stock

and removed himself in March from a case.  Would this be a case where any Justice

who has any pharma stock has to step down?  Or would it be specific to the

individual vaccine makers from this particular case?  -

From: EOHarm

[mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Krakow

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:50 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: Re: article in Atlanta Journal Constitution

Sorry to respond to my own message, but this part of the decision, rejecting

decisions that have found that the vaccine act preempts state civil action,

specifically contemplates resolution of this issue in the US Supreme

Court:

Therefore,

although the Vaccine Act

provides

for limited no-fault compensation, construing

subsection

((1) as set forth in Bruesewitz,

Sykes,

Blackmon, and Militrano“would ‘have the

perverse

effect of granting complete [tort] immunity

from

design defect liability to an entire industry....’

[Cit.]”Doyle v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft,

267 Ga. 574, 576-577 (481 S.E.2d

518) (1997) (quoting Medtronic v. Lohr, supra at

487(IV)).

In the absence of any clear and manifest

congressional

purpose to achieve that result, we

must

reject such a far-reaching interpretation of 42

USC § 300aa-22

((1),

at least until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken on the

issue.

For those who can get attachments here is a pdf of the AHP

v. Ferrari decision issued today by the Supreme Court of Georgia:

<2008_10_06_AHP_v_Ferrari_Thimerosal_autism.pdf>

An important part of the Court's holding is this:

Although

the Court of Appeals erred in holding

that

Bates precludes the use of legislative history,

we

nevertheless affirm the judgment of the Court of

Appeals

because a full examination of both the text

of 42 USC § 300aa-22 ((1) and the

congressional

intent

behind it show that the Vaccine Act does not

preempt all design defect claims, but instead

provides that a vaccine manufacturer cannot be held

liable for defective design if it is determined, on a

case-by-case basis, that the injurious side effects of

the particular vaccine were unavoidable.

J.

Krakow

Law Office of

J. Krakow, P.C.

1205 lin

Avenue, Suite 110

Garden City,

New York 11530

(NYC)

(fax)

rkrakow@...

So does this now

to go the supreme court if the vaccine company files an appeal? Thank you

Betsy, this is huge! -

PS. Any

one have a run down on previous ties to pharma companies for the supreme court

justices?

In a

landmark decision, the state high court unanimously ruled that Marcelo and Carolyn

Ferrari’s lawsuit is not barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine

Injury Compensation Act. The court upheld a prior decision by the Georgia Court

of Appeals, which was the first appellate court in the nation to make such a

ruling.

Here's the tiny

http://tinyurl.com/42zur8

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of bhensonblack

Sent: Monday, October 06,

2008 2:02 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: article

in Atlanta Journal Constitution

Hi all...

My sister-in-law sent this to me today. Sorry, I don't know how to do

a tiny url

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/10/06/vaccine_aut

ism_lawsuit.html?cxtype=rss & cxsvc=7 & cxcat=13

Betsy

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow, P.C.

1205 lin Avenue, Suite 110

Garden City, New York 11530

(NYC)

(fax)

(Mobile)

rkrakow@...