Subject: FYI: Litigation against Manufacturers
There is a link to this on Catshots
(www.geocities.com/~kremersark/flemming2001.html),
but for the benefit of the newer members, manufacturers have been "released"
from liability, which in essence, leaves only the vets open for potential
liability issues. In this decision, vets were left holding the proverbial bag.
When you read the text below, note that it was from 1996, BEFORE the
injection sites were introduced as the standard of care in 1998. Keeping this
in
mind, any vet who is not following those recommendations is not following the
standard of care for the profession and following 1998, may be considered
liable
for something like a scruff shot. At least that's how I read it..
Here is the text:
"In 1996 the Seventh Circuit Federal Court, in Lynbrook Farms vs SmithKline
Beecham Corporation, upheld the contention that federal law, in the form of the
Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, preempted all state law and all state court tort
remedies that would have the effect of imposing any new or different safety,
efficacy, potency or purity requirements on licensed vaccines. This decision,
in
effect, precluded lawsuits agains vaccine manufacturers for problems arising
from their vaccines and left the veterinarian administering the vaccines as the
only party for injured plaintiffs to sue.
Other than the instructions on the vaccine label, there are no specific rules
regarding the use of vaccines by veterinarians. It is the lack of rules that
makes the veterinarian vulnerable to law suits. While it is the client who
decides which diseases the animal should be vaccinated against it is the
veterinarian who decides which is the proper vaccine to use and which is the
proper
manner in which to administer it. To minimize the possibility of a successful
suit, veterinarinas should administer vaccines to their patients according to
the professional standard of care and only after obtaining a valid informed
consent from the owner. Additionally, as no vaccine is 100% effective and
safe, the veterinarian should not guarantee or warranty that the vaccine will
be
safe or prevent disease.
A veterinarian who conformes to the standard of care, who obtains a valid and
informed consent ans who does not provide any warranty will go a long way in
defending themselves against vaccine-related claims."
So the long and the short of it is that litigation against any manufacturer
would be very difficult, if not impossible, at this time, with the above
precident.