[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 133 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H8953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LITIGATION REFORM FOR RESPIRATOR MANUFACTURERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a special aspect of a
subject that has been in our news a great deal lately, emergency
preparedness.
As a member of the Select Katrina Committee and as chairman of the
subcommittee overseeing FEMA, I know that it is absolutely critical to
prepare our Nation for natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or any
other catastrophe and the spread of disease that could come with it.
When disasters strike, the most effective method of prevention
depends, in part, on effective respiratory protection for millions who
may be exposed. This protection is available through careful use of
respirators, the masks, mostly disposable, that we see in pictures of
first responders, emergency personnel and health care workers who are
treating the sick.
The World Health Organization, for example, specifies certain
respirators for use in avian flu treatments. The United States has a
number of companies that manufacture respirators that are in a number
of States around this country. One, Mine Safety Appliances, is
headquartered in Pennsylvania and manufactures respirators in the
State.
These are high quality products, recognized by industry, health care
authorities and other experts as efficient, cost effective. More
importantly, these products are 100 percent regulated by an agency of
the U.S. Government, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
health, or NIOSH, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control in
the Department of Health and Human Services.
NIOSH prescribes design standards for respirators, tests respirators
in its own labs by its own professionals and monitors respirator
manufacturers to ensure their products consistently meet the standards
for which they are approved.
It also approves the warning labels that go on respirators to
indicate what uses are and are not appropriate to emphasize the need
for users to be sure that these respirators fit well.
It regulates the respirator manufacturers, but the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulates employers and
prescribes what level of approved respirators should be used to protect
against a particular workplace hazard.
Respirator manufacturers do not interact with respirator users. They
make their products according to government standards for their uses
approved by NIOSH and described on the label, but employers make the
decision about whether to provide a respirator and which one to provide
based on OSHA rules.
Unfortunately, in our litigation-obsessed society that separation of
responsibility has not protected our respirator manufacturers from
being sued in literally thousands of cases. Workers allege that a
respirator was defectively designed or contained an inadequate warning
label, and they got sick, and that somehow it is partly the fault of
the manufacturer.
As absurd as this may sound, it is the premise for up to 30,000
individual claims brought against each major respirator manufacturer in
the United States. There has been much controversy over many of these
claims, since they involve workers who claim to be sick with asbestosis
or silicosis.
In one situation, a Federal judge in Texas, a former nurse, found
that thousands of claims were essentially without any legal or medical
merit. They were produced by collusion between plaintiffs lawyers,
doctors paid by the claim, and the x-ray mills that produced the
diagnosis that could not survive medical review.
This corrupts the legal system and hurts most those few who are truly
ill. It also threatens otherwise strong American industries like
respirator manufacturing.
Our American respirator manufacturers are faced with the cost of
administering and processing tens of thousands of claims. Some of these
will be thrown out and some will be settled for a few hundred dollars,
but each one requires thousands of dollars of research and process.
None of these cases has resulted in a trial and a judgment against a
respirator manufacturer. It is the administrative cost of millions of
dollars each year that are now about to exceed the net income of many
companies from making respirators.
In short, we are in danger of losing a vital American industry that
we are going to need desperately if disaster strikes. Whether the
spread of a virus or biological terrorist attack, we already need
respirators for countless industrial applications and routine medical
and other health-related needs. Respirators are already providing
protection from the airborne hazards that are everywhere in the
recovery efforts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
They also served thousands in the aftermath of September 11th. We
cannot afford to have this vital industry torn down by inadequate
claims with dollar signs at their hubs. That is why I am pleased to be
the author, along with my original cosponsors, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle)
as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), of H.R. 2357, the
Respirator Access Assurance Act of 2005.
This is a very simple bill. It says that if a manufacturer has the
NIOSH approval for the design and labeling of a respirator, a
manufacturer cannot be sued on the basis of the detective design or
failure to warn.
It would apply to any case that has not gone to trial as of the
enactment and to future cases. We need this legislation, and I am
working with my colleagues and the House leadership to find an
appropriate opportunity to bring it to the House floor for a vote soon.
I hope my colleagues will share my concern over the need to ensure
that this American industry continues to produce these vital products
for emergency preparedness, and will approve this and make it the law
of the land.
____________________