Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1626450
 
 

Footnotes (25)



 


 



‘Fifty FDAs’: An Argument for Federal Preemption of State Tort Law that is Less than Meets the Eye


William W. Buzbee


Emory University School of Law

William Funk


Lewis & Clark Law School

Thomas Owen McGarity


University of Texas at Austin - School of Law

Sidney A. Shapiro


Wake Forest University School of Law

James Goodwin


Center for Progressive Reform

Matthew Shudtz


Center for Progressive Reform


Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-28
Energy Center Research Paper No. 10-10

Abstract:     
This white paper offers a comprehensive refutation of the “50 FDAs” argument in favor of federal regulatory preemption of state tort law in cases involving unreasonably dangerous drugs and medical devices.

The 50 FDAs argument posits that federal regulation of drugs and medical devices ought to preempt state tort law, because state tort law subjects manufacturers of these products to a wide range of inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory standards – the effective equivalent of having to comply with the regulations of 50 different FDAs. They contend that a better approach would be for FDA to adopt regulations imposing unitary federal standards that would supplant the entire state tort law system.

This white paper shows the 50 FDAs argument for what it really is: an attempt by drug and medical device manufacturers to limit citizen access to the courts so that they can avoid their civil law responsibilities, while at the same time trying to get a weak set of federal regulations that impose only minimal compliance costs. In this way, the 50 FDAs argument is part of the larger effort by regulated industry to preempt state tort law with weak regulations.

The authors of the white paper contend that the 50 FDAs argument should be rejected for the following reasons:
1. Despite industry assertions to the contrary, state tort laws are both uniform and predictable, and so are their application. If anything, the application of a unitary federal standard is more unpredictable than the application of state tort laws.
2. State tort law is an essential part of the way government in the United States functions, making good on the Constitution’s promise of jury trials in common law suits – thus giving citizens a chance to recover damages when they are harmed.
3. State tort laws help keep products safe. Fear of litigation makes a difference, as industry’s ongoing campaign to shield themselves from lawsuits demonstrates.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: regulatory preemption, tort law, drug and medical device safety

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 1, 2010 ; Last revised: July 28, 2013

Suggested Citation

Buzbee, William W. and Funk, William and McGarity, Thomas Owen and Shapiro, Sidney A. and Goodwin, James and Shudtz, Matthew, ‘Fifty FDAs’: An Argument for Federal Preemption of State Tort Law that is Less than Meets the Eye. Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-28; Energy Center Research Paper No. 10-10. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1626450

Contact Information

William W. Buzbee
Emory University School of Law ( email )
1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322
United States
404-727-6507 (Phone)
404-707-6820 (Fax)
William F. Funk
Lewis & Clark Law School ( email )
10015 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR 97219-7799
United States
503-768-6606 (Phone)
503-768-6671 (Fax)
Thomas Owen McGarity
University of Texas at Austin - School of Law ( email )
727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX 78705
United States
512-232-1384 (Phone)
Sidney A. Shapiro
Wake Forest University School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 7206
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
United States
336-758-5430 (Phone)
James Goodwin (Contact Author)
Center for Progressive Reform ( email )
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
United States
Matthew Shudtz
Center for Progressive Reform ( email )
Washington, DC 20005
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 430
Downloads: 48
Footnotes:  25

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.453 seconds