This week the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated drug consumers rights to sue generic drug manufacturers. In reviewing cases brought by consumers of the anti-nausea drug Reglan which is generically sold as Metoclopromide the U.S. Supreme Court removed consumers rights to their day in court. The Court has recently rendered a number of opinions that restrict citizens rights to have case heard in court. The pro business court also shielded Walmart from having to defend a class action lawsuit brought by women alleging that they were paid less and promoted less because of their gender.
These decisions are unfortunate because they remove any incentive for large corporations to look out for the safety of drug consumers in the Reglan case and remove incentives to be vigilant against gender discrimination in the Walmart case.
The Metaclopromide- Reglan case is surprisingly illogical because consumers have a right to have their day in court if they take a brand name drug but not if they have received a generic equivalent of the same drug. The court even acknowledged in its opinion that this result was illogical. The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor pointed out that this result was "absurd".
Both of these decisions stem, in my opinion, from the conservative court’s philosophy that business should not be burdened by have to have a jury consider the fairness of thier conduct towards citizens. These decisions did not decide whether the corporations had done wrong or not. The decisions ruled that the consumers and employees did not have a right to even have their cases heard in court at all.
Admitted to both the California State Bar and the Florida State Bar, Joseph Saunders has also practiced in the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals. His philosophy is to provide aggressive, quality representation and seek fair compensation for individuals and their families who have suffered injury or death at the hands of insurance companies, large corporations, medical providers or governmental entities.