Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 22, 2007, to allow product liability lawsuits against drug companies for drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food And Drug Administration (FDA). The bill would repeal a “tort reform” law passed in 1995, under which such lawsuits are prohibited in Michigan courts unless the company intentionally withheld information or misled the FDA about the drug, or used bribery to gain approval

The vote was 70 in favor, 39 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 11 at House Journal 17)

Click here to view bill details.

After enduring more than ten years of one of the single most unjust laws in the nation, the Michigan House did the right thing and rescinded the absolute drug industry immunity in our state.

Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to HB 4044. I have agonized over this bill because I certainly am concerned about the wellbeing of our citizens and their ability to seek damages in a court of law against any individual or corporation who they believe has injured them. But this bill is not about whether an individual can continue to do that. In fact, under current law, anyone who believes they have been injured by a pharmaceutical company can file suit once they have made the case before the Food and Drug Administration. But there needs to be a balance between protecting the rights of the individual to seek damages and the rights of a life science company to make a product that benefits the population at large and provides employment for thousands of people in this state. As a state representative I will continue to uphold the rights of victims to seek damages. But I must also be mindful of how our actions affect the economic future of our state. Mr. Speaker under this new legislation, there will be no winners, no real benefit for victims hurt by prescription drugs. They will still have their day in court if they can show that the manufacturer was truly negligent or fraudulent. There may be, however, many losers, those who are employed in the life sciences industries in this state who may not expand in this state and those individuals who may benefit in the future from a newly developed life-saving drug. Let us not forget this is one of the key industries our governor has highlighted for growth, and rightly so. In my district alone, over 40 new life sciences companies have spun off or started up in the last ten years. These are not 'big pharma' companies, not greedy corporations who only care about profits, no, these companies are just trying to create jobs and new, life saving drugs. But passage of this bill will not encourage job growth. Currently, there are over 13,000 men and women in Michigan who earn their livelihood from the pharmaceutical and life science industry, 4000 in my district alone. I shudder to think what message this legislation will send to those individuals and the companies who employ them. Let us be mindful that should this legislation pass our loved ones and future generations will be that much further from a cure for any number of diseases because the companies whose mission it is to find that cure had to divert precious research dollars to pay lawyers to defend a product which had already undergone years of research, development, testing and FDA approval. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this bill."

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I could not in good conscience vote for House Bills 4044, 4045 and 4046 which would allow more lawsuits and predominantly benefit attorneys, not consumers. These bills will drive up the cost of all prescriptions for Michigan residents. The inane position that states, 'If this legislation helps just one person or even 100 people, we should pass it,' is foolish at best. If Congress or any state legislature passes legislation which benefits one to a hundred people, but potentially hurts and drives up the cost of healthcare for thousands or millions of people, they have in fact passed bad legislation. It is difficult to control the cost of prescriptions, medical procedures and operations, but limiting the ability to sue issomething we can do. The FDA approval process is by leaps and bounds the most stringent, costly, and time-consuming drug approval process in the world. It is one of the reasons prescription drugs cost more in the United States than anywhere else and why it generally takes 7 to 10 years and millions of dollars to get a new drug approved. Most of the drugs currently being reviewed in the U.S. are already available in other countries. People around the world are already benefiting from these new drugs and in some situations these drugs have saved their lives. I think we should limit liability more, not less, and divide the FDA approval process into two steps. The first step would allow people to take drugs currently in the approval process at their own risk and choice. They would not be able sue and the risks would be made clear, but people ought to be given that choice. They may not have 7 to 10 years to wait, especially when already approved medications and procedures are not working. The second step is full approval. If the process was in place, it would lower the cost of all medications entering the market in the U.S. Pharmaceutical companies would be able to get their product to the market sooner and still retain their patent, which usually only last ten years, and thus recover their costs over 7 to 10 years rather than 1 to 2 years. This would also reduce the drug importation differentials between the U.S. and other countries. I do not want to ignore the pain and tragedy which can take place when someone reacts negatively to a medication or procedure, which unfortunately will always be a possibility. FDA-approved drugs have very good effectiveness ratios, especially when you compare ratios of 10 to 100 people reacting negatively, to millions of people reacting positively. The overwhelming majority of people using FDA approved drugs, are living healthier and longer, because of them. The risk should be clear, but the choice should be theirs. Finally, if we want to truly reduce the cost of health care, give people more choices and options, and control lawsuits that have nothing to do with health care, then we should limit lawsuits-not expand them as this legislation does."

Rep. Shaffer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I support giving victims of pharmaceutical malfeasance their day in court, and I believe drug companies should be held accountable if they knowingly sell a product on the market that will injure or prove to be fatal. But I cannot support legislation that puts personal injury lawyers ahead of victims, and puts honest Michigan job providers in jeopardy of a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits. Our already fragile economy would be irrevocably harmed by this well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided piece of legislation. Victims harmed by fraudulent acts or information provided by a drug manufacturer deserve to be compensated for their injuries, and those responsible should face not just financial, but criminal repercussions. But HB 4044 is not about victims or holding drug companies accountable. It's about giving a handful of personal injury lawyers unlimited access to our legal system to flood our courts with frivolous suits in hopes of windfall payoff. I cannot support HB 4044 unless it is amended to focus solely on the rights of victims. Our aim must be to help those who are the victims of injustice, not those who seek to profit by exploiting the legal system."

Rep. Casperson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I rise today to oppose this legislation because there were amendments offered, but not accepted by the majority, that would have limited trial lawyers from taking advantage of the system and the very people they represent. I also believe the passage of this bill will hurt future opportunities for research in new drugs. I have been thankful for the research that has been put into drugs because my family has personally benefited from those developments. My wife, Diane, has battled cancer for eight years and has won thanks to continued research and the drugs that have come out of that. Also, my family has seen first hand the effects of Alzheimer's in the loss of my Dad. My hope and prayer is that no other family has to go through what we have experienced. That can happen with continued research in the hope that someday this horrible disease will be cured. This package of bills will not bring victims back or help people in the long run. It will only benefit greedy trial lawyers"

Rep. Huizenga, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I rise today in opposition to HB 4044 for the following reasons: The way this bill, and the rest of the package of bills, are constructed do not put the interests of consumers and victims ahead of those of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association. A series of amendments were offered that would have corrected this error of priorities which put attorney profits above victims needs. Unfortunately these amendments were rejected. Every Life Science organization in Michigan, including VAI and MICHBIO, oppose this package of bills even though they do not directly manufacture drugs in this state. They do so because they realize that the message sent by passage of these bills today is the wrong one. The attempt to foster a climate of innovation in the past years, including my attempt as co-author of the 21st Century Jobs Fund with the current Speaker, has started to reap rewards in the way of jobs. Research and bringing that research into production are the keys to success as we attempt to cure the most horrible of diseases. Unfortunately again, the majority has chosen to ignore past positive actions in favor of short term political gain."

Rep. Robertson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: My opposition to this legislation is based upon my genuine concern for the chilling effect its passage would have on life-saving research and development of new drugs and treatments. I am moved by the compelling testimony of Anthony Lesnick, a prostate cancer survivor, which appears in the House Judiciary Committee record. The proponents of this legislation argue that the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) process of approval of prescription drugs cannot be relied upon to protect our citizens from harm. No drug or treatment is without risk. Our policy therefore must be based upon sound science and our best estimate of cost and benefit. Concerns about our drug approval should be advanced in Washington D.C. not here in Lansing. Proponents have cynically characterized this debate as one of putting 'people over profits', yet they ignore those many people like Anthony Lesnick whose life was saved by pharmaceuticals drugs used in combination with gene therapy. The proponents of this legislation's failure to support amendments which would have placed limitation on attorney's fees severely undermines their credibility in advancing this legislation."

Michigan in 1995 passed the unjust law protecting drug makers from people in the state that have been hurt by drugs. The drug companies have been making huge profits. The Engler admin. said the law would protect jobs in the state of Michigan. Recently drug makers have fired some of their Michigan employees and moved the work to other states killing the idea that the law protects Michigan employees. The people that live in Michigan have been penalized when harmed by dangerous drugs and treated like we are second class. People in other states have the ability of collecting damages when hurt by drugs that in many cases the drug makers knew were dangerous or should have known they were dangerous. The drugs are no cheaper in Michigan than the rest of the country where people have more rights. Its time law makers help the people that helped put them in office and pass these bills in the state senate.

The comments that say they can not support the change in the law because it will slow or stop the drug companies from developing new drugs just don`t hold water with me. I know new drugs help save lives and help people get better but unfortunately a lot of people are being hurt by new drugs after paying a huge price for the drug allowing the drug makers to make huge profits. I think Michigan is the only state that does not allow its citizens to collect damages when someone is hurt by side effects of a drug. I know for a fact that sometimes the drug companies drag their feet or fight about adding side effect warnings to a drug knowing the warning may hurt sales and profits. I took zometa and aredia for prostate cancer. Now my jaw is messed up. I read that the FDA asked the drug companies to add warnings about this possible side effect and the drug companies delayed adding the warning for several months I think because they knew adding the warning would hurt the sales. Other states are trying to collect damages for people hurt by these drugs including the cost of medical expenses. They are also asking the drug makers to pay for medical monitoring for the people who took the drugs. By offering medical monitoring the hope is to catch the problem early before it turns into a major medical problem. I am talking about big drug makers that are making millions of dollars profit. The medical cost are paid by individuals, insurance companies, and even the state through medicare. Insurance rates are very high and climbing even pricing some of our citizens out of being able to afford it. Why should citizens, insurance companies, and the state have to pay the cost of a side effect when the maker of that drug is making millions. That's not right. Even with insurance as I have, I still have to pay drug co pays, doctor visits and have a $2500.00 deductible. If this law is the savior for the drug companies why are they moving jobs out of Michigan to states that don`t restrict their citizens from collecting damages when hurt by a dangerous drug? Why aren't the drug companies moving jobs out of those states to Michigan instead? Please think about it and follow the Houses lead protecting the citizens of this great state. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments and please help the citizens in the great state of Michigan hurt by drug side effects.

"In fact, under current law, anyone who believes they have been injured by a pharmaceutical company can file suit once they have made the case before the Food and Drug Administration." These comments you made: Please tell me of one case where a citizen was able to do this. I think you and I both know that the way the law reads (I don`t know the exact words) saying prove the drug company knew about the side effect and intentionally sold the drug any way makes it impossible a citizen to sue the drug company. Please tell us of one case where a Michigan citizen was able to sue under this current law and I will apology to you.

Citizens from the state of Michigan are no different than citizens from other states. We suffer sometimes with side effects from medications even death that we should have been warned about and possibly not given the medication at least warned enough to make a choice. Other states citizens are allowed to recover money damages but not citizens from Michigan. Some argue that because it takes seven to ten years to get a new medication approved for the market in the United States the present law should not be changed because it would slow getting new life saving medications to market. I strongly disagree with that argument. The drug companies are not running a charity and although they have helped a lot of people and saved lives they are a business and as a business their motive in developing drugs is to make money. If you don`t agree just look at the cost of the drugs or look at their financial balance sheets. Many people can not afford the drugs because of the drug companies quest for profit. Why should a recipient of a drug that caused side effects have to struggle to pay for the treatment of the side effect, or a family struggle with the lost income from the death of a loved one caused by the drug that the drug company made huge profits off sometimes even failing to adequately warn the patient about? The price the drug companies charge for the drug should offer protection for the cost of the side effect similar to any other consumer product manufactured at a profit. Its very disgusting to see our state senate spend all their time arguing about the budget and not anything else. I understand how important the budget is but you guys asked us to put you in office to do a job. Its time they take up this legislation that most citizens want. We are only asking fairness for our day in court. We need senators to work for the citizens of this state. Drug companies are moving jobs out of this state to states that allow regress for dangerous drug side effects. We only wanted to be treated with fairness and compassion. People in this state deserve to be treated as good as citizens in the rest of the country. The house members did what they said they would when they ran for office now they have a lot of respect for that. The state senators need to stop positioning themselves for a run for higher office or a job with the drug companies as our former gov. did. Please do your job that you were elected for and move this legislation forward in the senate. You need to get the budget done and work on the rest of your job please move this important legislation forward as most citizens want. Thanks and God bless you. No citizen should have to struggle to pay for the side effects caused by a drug made by a very profitable business.

I wrote the please Help comments and want to make one more comment on the subject. As much as I believe Michigan citizens should be treated fairly like the rest of the country I do not support the multimillion dollar judgements. I think citizens should be compensated but at fair amounts. I agree with limits on the judgements. If fair limits are put on the award amounts in a lot of cases they should be able to be settled out of court without huge legal expenses. I don`t know what the limits should be but I think Michigan has limits on other medical lawsuits and those limits should be a good place to start when negotiating this law. Please be fair to us citizens hurt by drug side effects compensating us fairly to cover medical expenses, lost income and pain and suffering. I do not agree with breaking the bank with the huge multimillion dollar settlements that make all the papers. We just want fairness. It does not seem right for anyone to struggle paying medical expenses caused by drug side effects after paying a huge price for the drug and seeing the drug maker make huge profits. Please help the citizens from this state who have been hurt by drug side effects.

This is a hideous law that does not allow citizens harmed by FDA approved drugs to seek recourse for damages they received due to side effects of the drugs.. It needs to be appealed immediately so that Michigan residents may gain some justice for what can be a lifelong sentence from the side effects.

Senator Gleason, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against postponing the motion to discharge the Committee on Judiciary from further consideration of Senate Bill No.43 and House Bill No.4044. Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: I wasn't the first member of my family to take an oath; I was just the latest. I was distinctly honored and privileged only this past year in taking an oath of office. My oath of office stated, "I John Gleason do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Senator in the State Legislature" I mentioned earlier that I wasn't first, only the last, to take an oath of office. My older brother Jim, just fulfilled his term as president of the State Bar Association for the great state of New Hampshire. I read you what my oath was. The oath of the State Bar of Michigan, which he was also sworn into the state bar of Michigan a few years ago as well, it says, "I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any cause for lucre or malice;" I come from a great family; I have great parents. My older brother was sworn in as an attorney. My youngest brother took the Hippocratic Oath as a doctor. He just fulfilled his term as chief of staff at a hospital up in Alaska. These are the terms of the Hippocratic Oath, two versions, modern as well as the classical version. My brother Tim stated these words: "I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug." Further, "I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure." That was the modern version. The classical version states, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." My fellow Senators, we have asked for some resolutions for Michigan citizens who have been harmed. Recently, there was a well-noted national settlement from Merck and its affiliation with the drug Vioxx. Forty-nine states have disbursed compensation to their citizens who have been harmed. Michigan was let out of the fact that they could not stand alone. Their citizenry, our citizenry, the ones who we are elected to represent said that we could not offer this wholly as a state. We must conjoin with another state to offer justice and relief, both medical and judicial relief. It's been far too long that we have stood as an isolated state to offer relief to our citizenry who have most recently been reaffirmed to have been harmed. Five billion dollars speaks volumes. That was not an easy disbursement by Merck. That speaks volumes that there were duties that were neglected. I spoke only a few weeks ago about how were leaving our folks out. I think we need to offer, as representatives of the people of Michigan, justice. Let's remove the impediments that offer our citizenship an opportunity to stand before the judicial system. We have three branches of government because the Founding Fathers of our country, followed by those who founded our state, three branches of government that should be held to the highest honor and responsibility: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Yet, in 1996, we removed a very important part of democracy, the judicial branch of our government, by conceding it to the legislative branch. My fellow Senators, our people have suffered too long. We shouldn't ride on the back of New Jersey or New York. We should be big enough to offer relief and remedies to our citizenry with our own volition. Tens of thousand of Michigan citizens were compromised while taking that medicine. Across the country, between 25,000 and 30,000 American citizens were harmed, and some even have been proposed to have died from taking this drug. Now some will say, "Vioxx has offered a remedy." Our purpose shouldn't be solely about Vioxx; our purpose should be wholly about justice and Michigan citizens getting the relief they deserve; that we were elected to offer them. We should not impede them their day in court. Mr.Chairman, that is my "no" vote explanation. I ask that we do the job that the people of Michigan have elected us to do. Give them the third branch of government, the judicial process. There are others beside my brothers and sisters who have taken oaths to uphold the dignity of human life. Those in this chamber should join with my family in my effort here today to give our Michigan folks the justice that has been delayed for far too long.

Sen Gleason, Thanks for caring about the citizens from this state hurt by prescription drug side effects. I know a lot of your colleges don`t think too highly of us. Some of us don`t have a lot of money and struggle not only with our medical problems but are made to feel like we are greedy for asking the drug companies to pay for their mistake. I think its wrong for a few Republicans to hold this bill hostage not even allowing debate on it in the comittee. I think they know if its put for a vote there would be support for making it a law. I`m sure its hard to back down from their position a lot are holding for political reasons. This bill has already been debated and scrutinized before the House voted on it. Its time everyone forget their political views and cross the isle to work together to do whats right. Polls show the majority of the citizens support this bill and changing the law. It just seems like a lot of our politicians want to support the well off and not the sick and poor in this state. It sure is nice we have a Senator like you Sen. Gleason that is willing to take all the criticism he gets to stick up for Citizens that may be sick and may be suffering with drug side effects. Right now many have to use their own money to pay for the treatments caused by the side effect from the drug. I read the letters above from House members explaining their reasons for voting no on this legislation. I can tell you I support their right to vote no. I know some of their families were helped by prescription drugs. I don`t think I saw any letters from House members who suffered bad side effects or even the death of one of their family members. I wonder if that happened to them if their view may be different. In any case I support your right to vote no on this bill. Its your decision. What I can not support is a few members not allowing this bill to come out of comittee for a floor vote. That's wrong. Please follow Sen Gleasons lead and let this bill be voted on. Thanks for taking the time to read this and please do whats right.

After listening to Governor Jennifer Granholm`s State of the State I again felt proud to be living in this great state. On top of her upbeat message Governor Jennifer Granholm touched on getting the drug company protection law changed. This would make the citizens in this state equal to the citizens in other states. I was about ready to give up all hope I had on this law being changed. The people in this state who have been hurt by drug side effects are only asking for their day in court. We are being told that the FDA can not protect us from all the drug side effects even telling us they are broke. The court system offers a check and balance for the drug companies. The drug companies are not making drugs solely because they want to help the human population, they are doing so to make money. I do not think the drug makers are going to spend additional money and risk slowing sales by adequately warn citizens without being forced to do so. Knowing they can be held liable for not warning citizens on side effects forces them to disclose the side effect information to the patients taking the drug. This is an added check and balance. Its not right to tell people hurt by drug side effects your on your own because your from Michigan. Not only do some of us suffer with physical pain but it causes a financial burden on families some are suffering with the lost of a loved one. The thought that the drug companies and related research companies and universities will close shop and pull out of Michigan is wrong. What state can they move to that offers immunity to law suits? The answer is none. I believe this state will protect jobs by improving education and getting people trained in the research fields they need for the highly technical jobs. There are also other tax breaks in property taxes and even help with the high cost of training employees. Its not right to offer a law suit immunity break off the backs of the citizens who have been hurt and suffering with drug side effects. These people and their families are suffering enough. Please move this bill through the Senate as it has already been in the House of Reps. I truly wish our law makers good health for you and your families.

Its time for our Gov Granholm to give this a little more than lip service. She needs to start putting pressure on some of the Republicans to take up this bill. She says she supports changing the bill but is almost silent about the bill. She could twist some arms and push this bill.

Its time for our Gov Granholm to give this a little more than lip service. She needs to start putting pressure on some of the Republicans to take up this bill. She says she supports changing the bill but is almost silent about the bill. She could twist some arms and push this bill.

Its time for us voters to clean house of most of our self serving republicans who only care about themselves and the rich. I guess that is to get money from big medical companies to try and win elections and get high paying jobs from the big drug companies when they are term limited or voted out like our previous govonor. I have voted republican in the past but the republican party no longer cares about the people in this state. I look forward to seeing the democrats running the state house and senate and the majority of our national goverment starting with the president down. Good luck to you guys in the real world.

The recent supreme court ruling will help people hurt by side effects caused by perscription drugs where a drug maker failed to warn    them about it. Maybe they knew about the side effect or should have known and failed to add the side effect to the drug warning lable. I believe the new supreme court ruling will help people seek regress in 49 states, but not Michigan. Does anyone know if that is the case for sure? If True the Michigan Senators working to block Michigander`s rights should be ashamed of their lack of action. I hope this gets tested in the Michigan Supreme Court soon. I don`t expect any action in the Michigan Senate until after the next election when some of the hard line Republicans are voted out and more compasinate law makers are voted in. I have a feeling that if this issue is taken up by the Michigan Supreme Court the law may get changed. Please write your Senator and let them know how you feel on this issue. Tell them you demand this issue be taken to the floor for a vote, once on the floor they will have the right to vote to retain ammunity for the drug makers if that is what they want, but its not fair to not allow a vote. Please write the Gov. Granholm administration asking for her help move this issue to the frying pan. Please demand all the Senators tell us their view on this issue so we can use the information to help decide who to support in the next election.                                                                      

Jack C.