Michigan
House G.O.P. Commits to Fight Cut in Merit Scholarships
Michigan
Appeals Court OKs Electric Cycle Use
For Disabled
Summer Resident on 'Motorless' Mackinac Island
Diet
Drug Makers Can't be Sued, Michigan Supreme Court Rules
For more articles like this
visit
https://www.bridges4kids.org
MICHIGAN HOUSE G.O.P. COMMITS TO FIGHT CUT IN MERIT
SCHOLARSHIPS
Gongwer News Service, March 26, 2003
Gearing up for action on the 2003-04 budget, House Republicans
agreed Wednesday to what several of them have been saying for
weeks: to reject Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm's
proposal to gut the Merit Award college scholarship.
Ms. Granholm has called for reducing the scholarship from $2,500
to $500 and redirecting the tobacco settlement money that now
funds the award into health care. The $500 award for middle
school pupils would be eliminated. Pupils who score well on the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program Award receive the
scholarship.
Republicans huddled behind closed doors almost for about four
hours Wednesday afternoon in their largest meeting yet on budget
matters. Private caucus meetings, once a rarity, have been a
daily ritual almost all year and especially since Ms. Granholm
unveiled her recommended budget March 6.
GOP members have not yet coalesced around an alternative to make
up the cuts that would be triggered in other programs by
preserving the scholarship.
In meetings of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Republican members have been chiding the Merit Award
cut for weeks, saying it is the only state scholarship based on
merit instead of need.
The Granholm administration has defended its proposal, saying
the scholarship program is important, but not vital. It also
says the state's $300 million annual share of the national
tobacco settlement should be spent on health care.
Ms. Granholm said to reporters following her address to the
Michigan Municipal League, "I'd love to salvage the Merit Award
Scholarships. The question is where does the money come from."
The same goes for softening the cuts to higher education, she
said.
While she added she is open to any ideas, the governor said the
budget is already carefully balanced and legislators adding in
one area will have to be come with alternative cuts in other
areas. Ms. Granholm said legislators who reject her proposals to
gain $129.8 million for the general and school aid funds by
closing tax loopholes will also have to identify other places to
cut in the budget.
"This is the best budget we could put together, but I'm happy to
listen to better ideas," Ms. Granholm said.
Republicans also are taking a dim view of the $128.9 million in
tax loophole eliminations proposed by the administration as
disguised tax increases.
back to the top
MICHIGAN APPEALS COURT OKS ELECTRIC CYCLE USE
FOR DISABLED SUMMER RESIDENT ON 'MOTORLESS' MACKINAC ISLAND
Gongwer News Service, March 26, 2003
Mackinac Island's ban on motorized vehicles cannot be enforced
against persons with disabilities whose use of electric-assisted
tricycle is protected by federal and state laws, a unanimous
Court of Appeals has ruled. The city had already made exceptions
for electric cart use for persons who cannot walk and the court
said a summer resident with MS is also entitled to use a vehicle
with a motor to enjoy the cycling aspect of the popular tourist
destination.
The three-judge panel (in Bertrand v. City of Mackinac Island,
COA docket No. 243923) also cited a federal court ruling
involving Casey Martin's successful attempt to use a golf cart
in PGA events (where rules require walking the course) in
denying the city's argument that its rules should be protected.
The city has banned motorized vehicles in city areas since 1898
and the Mackinac Island State Park Commission, which controls
most of the island, has specifically banned motorized bicycles
since 1907.
The city contended use of the cycle by Donald Bertrand is a
private activity not covered by the state or federal acts
establishing rights for persons with disabilities, but the court
said its regulation of all aspects of transportation constitutes
a public service that is covered by the disabilities laws. The
court said the small motor, which enables the cyclist to go
about 12 miles per hour, is an adaptive aid to facilitate the
use of the tricycle by a disabled person as protected under the
state law.
Agreeing with the trial court, Judges Pat Donofrio, Henry Saad
and Donald Owens said it is irrelevant that the city has allowed
use of electric wheelchairs and Amigo carts for those who cannot
walk, declaring the analogous activity that must be accommodated
is the ability to cycle on the streets.
The court also rejected the city's argument that use of the
electric-assisted cycle would constitute a fundamental change to
the island's character, saying the Martin case indicates that
"an entity subject to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
may have to alter its rules rather significantly to accommodate
the disabled without the alteration being considered to
fundamentally alter the practices of the entity." It said use of
the cycle would only pose a peripheral impact on the island.
back to the top
DIET DRUG MAKERS CAN'T BE SUED, MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT RULES
Gongwer News Service, March 26, 2003
Persons who were harmed as a result of taking diet drugs Fen-Phen
and Redux are legitimately barred under state law from suing the
pharmaceutical companies that made them because the products had
been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a 6-1
majority of the Michigan Supreme Court ruled March 26, 2003.
The decision (Taylor v. SmithKline Beecham, SC docket No.
120624) reversed the Court of Appeals, which had concluded that
state law protecting the drug makers was unconstitutional
because it delegated a legislative power to the FDA.
Justice Clifford Taylor, writing the majority opinion, said
rather than delegating power to the federal agency, the law
"uses independently significant decisions of the FDA as a
measuring device to set the standard of care for manufacturers
and sellers of prescription drugs in Michigan. It represents a
legislative determination as a matter of law of when a
manufacturer or seller of a prescription drug has acted
sufficiently reasonably, solely for the purpose of defining the
limits of a cognizable products liability claim under Michigan
law."
The FDA-approved provision was added to the law in 1995 and
before that, it had protected companies in products liability
suits if they met governmental or industry standards.
"The Legislature has determined that a drug manufacturer or
seller that has properly obtained FDA approval of a drug product
has acted sufficiently prudently so that no tort liability may
lie," the court said. Signing the opinion were Justices Michael
Cavanagh, Stephen Markman, Robert Young Jr. and Chief Justice
Maura Corrigan. Concurring separately was Justice Elizabeth
Weaver.
The majority cited case law holding that while the Legislature
may not delegate its power to make law, it can make a law to
delegate a power to determine a fact or condition upon which the
law's impact depends.
"To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government," the
court added. "Michigan's referral statutes are apparently so
uncontroversial as to be rarely challenged. This is not
surprising when one considers that, for example, any statutory
reference to time, weight, age, gender, birth, death, or even
print size for legal documents is an exercise of the Legislature
referring to findings made by someone other than itself."
The court said several statutes give similar delegation of power
to that exercised here, such as authorizing boards of canvassers
to determine if candidate nominating petitions meet state
standards.
The court said the law does not make the FDA the final arbiter
of whether a drug may form the basis of a products liability
case, but rather simply establishes that the FDA determination
measures whether a drug manufacturer exercised reasonable care.
Justice Marilyn Kelly would have upheld the appellate court,
saying the majority "adopts, with little discussion, the
'independently significant standard' doctrine, while restricting
the limitation that our lower courts and our precedent have
placed on legislative delegations."
Ms. Kelly said the majority decision ignores that the standards
used by the FDA change from time to time, a pattern that is at
odds with the implicit determination of the Legislature that
another agency's decisions are sufficiently reliable to be
conclusive.
"A statute that enables a foreign body to make a policy
determination not embraced by the Legislature perpetrates an
unconstitutional delegation of the Legislature's power," she
said.
In a reply, the majority said the law only presumes a drug maker
acted with reasonable care if it followed FDA standards in
effect at the time the drug was approved.
back to the top |