Many of bloggers and journalist I read are convinced that Obama’s administration is out to completely strike down preemption as an effective defense by medical manufacturers.  While the Wyeth v. Levine preemption case was a big win for the U.S. trial lawyers and a big set back for the Bush Administration’s attempt to override a State’s rights concerning product liability law, I am not so sure that Obama will not support preemption as a defense for medical manufacturers in the future.

Past history shows that while in the Senate, Obama, went against party lines and U.S. trial lawyers and voted for tort reform.  So it is not a slam-dunk that he will look to completely do away preemption as a viable defense.

The bigger issue with preemptive defense for medical products is the FDA seems to ignore the risk/utility analysis  so commonly used in product liability lawsuits to determine if another product on the market at the same time as the alleged defective product would perform the same functions without the alleged defect.   It appears that the FDA routinely approves medical products that have similar uses as existing medical products on the market, but have more side effects without providing superior results.

This leads many to believe that the FDA is not a truly independent agency and that they may be coming under the influence of the big medical and drug companies.  As long as this continues to happen there appears to be no choice but to allow product liability lawsuits to determine if the injury in question could have been avoided.

If preemption is going to be used as an effective product liability defense, the FDA is going to have to tighten its approval guidelines so they have more credibility within the courts.