Court Opinion

ID: 9780810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 02:56:05.830608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:14.190398
License: Public Domain

NAHMIAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I join the majority’s result and its opinion except for the recounting on page 184 of this Court’s reasoning in Ferrari II. That discussion is unnecessary, and it may be read to suggest, inappropriately, that this Court believes that a “full examination of § 300aa-22 (b) (1) in context and the congressional intent behind it” still “shows that the Act does not preempt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.” The Supreme Court of the United States has now conducted its own “full examination of § 300aa-22 (b) (1) in context and the congressional intent behind it” and reached the opposite conclusion, which is binding on this Court. See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, _U. S._, _ (131 SC 1068, 1075-1086, 179 LE2d 1) (2011) (examining the statutory text, statutory and regulatory structure, and legislative history). See also id. at_-_(131 SC at 1082-1086) (Breyer, J., concurring) (further examining the legislative history and statutory purpose). The United States Supreme Court also rejected the understanding of its Medtronic decision upon which Ferrari II’s “far-reaching interpretation” passage was based. See Bruesewitz,_U. S. at_(131 SC at 1080).