IVO JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
WYETH LABORATORIES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, MERCK, SHARPE & DOHME ORTHOPEDICS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, MERRILL NATIONAL, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Swine Flu Act mandates dismissal of his action.
Ivo Jones sued vaccine manufacturers for injuries from a swine flu inoculation, but the United States was substituted as the defendant. The district c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Swine Flu Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ivo Jones commenced this action against four manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by a swine flu innoeulation that had been administered to him. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k),1 the District Court permitted the United States to substitute itself as a defendant in the lawsuit. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss Jones’s action based upon his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A) provides that claims arising under the Swine Flu Act are governed by the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b) of the Tort Claims Act, a claimant must present his claim to the appropriate administrative agency before filing an action in the district court. The District Court found that Jones, admittedly, had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Thus, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss.
The District Court rejected Jones’s contentions that: (1) the Swine Flu Act does not apply to negligence claims, and (2) the Act is unconstitutional. After a review of the briefs and the District Court’s opinion, we are satisfied that the court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. We, thus, affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion.2 See Ivo Jones v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., etc., et al., 457 F.Supp. 35 (W.D.Ark.1978).
Affirmed.
. 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A) provides for the liability of the United States for injuries or death caused by administration of the swine flu vaccine. 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(3) provides in part:
The remedy against the United States prescribed by paragraph (2) * * * shall be exclusive of any other civil action * * * against any employee of the Government * * * or program participant whose act or omission gave arise [sic] to the claim.
. We note that the Fifth Circuit has recently upheld the constitutionality of the Swine Flu Act. See Ducharme v. Merrill-National Laboratories, 574 F. 2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914 (8th Cir. 1980)
-
Hammond v. United States, 786 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Marie and Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-National Labs., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978)