source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Souter Justice O’Connor,

license: Public Domain

text:
    SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. WHITECOTTON et al.
    No. 94-372.
    Argued February 28, 1995
    Decided April 18, 1995

      Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. O’Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 276.

      Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Barbara C. Biddle, Richard A. Olderman, and Karen R Hewitt.

      Robert T. Moxley argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Richard Gage, Peter H. Meyers, and John S. Capper TV.

         Stephan E. Lawton and Anne M. Dellinger filed a brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Curtis R. Webb filed a brief for Dissatisfied Parents Together et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case is whether a claimant who shows that she experienced symptoms of an injury after receiving a vaccination makes out a prima facie case for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3755, 42 U. S. C. §300aa-1 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), where the evidence fails to indicate that she had no symptoms of that injury before the vaccination. We hold that the claimant does not make out a case for compensation.

I

For injuries and deaths traceable to vaccinations, the Act establishes a scheme of recovery designed to work faster and with greater ease than the civil tort system. H. R. Rep. No. 99-908, pp. 3-7 (1986). Special masters in the Court of Federal Claims hear vaccine-related complaints, 42 U. S. C. §300aa-12(c) (1988 ed., Supp. V), which they adjudicate informally, §300aa-12(d)(2), within strict time limits, §300aa-12(d)(3)(A), subject to similarly expeditious review, § 300aa-12(e)(2). A claimant alleging that more than $1,000 in damages resulted from a vaccination after the Act’s effective date in 1988 must exhaust the Act’s procedures and refuse to accept the resulting judgment before filing any de novo civil action in state or federal court. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-11(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. V).

The streamlining does not stop with the mechanics of litigation, but goes even to substantive standards of proof. While a claimant may establish prima facie entitlement to compensation by introducing proof of actual causation, §300aa-11(c)(l)(C)(ii), she can reach the same result by meeting the requirements of what the Act calls the Vaccine Injury Table. The table lists the vaccines covered under the Act, together with particular injuries or conditions associated with each one. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-14 (1988 ed., Supp. V). A claimant who meets certain other conditions not relevant here makes out a prima facie case by showing that she (or someone for whom she brings a claim) “sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table in association with [a] vaccine ... or died from the administration of such vaccine, and the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or of the significant aggravation of any such illness, disability, injury, or condition or the death occurred within the time period after vaccine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” 42 U. S. C. §300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i). Thus, the rule of prima facie proof turns the old maxim on its head by providing that if the post hoc event happens fast, ergo propter hoc. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may rebut a prima facie case by proving that the injury or death was in fact caused by “factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine . . . § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). If the Secretary fails to rebut, the claimant is entitled to compensation. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-13(a)(1) (1988 ed. and Supp. V).

Respondents, Margaret Whitecotton and her parents, filed a .claim under the Act for injuries Margaret allegedly sustained as a result of vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (or DPT) on August 18, 1975, when she was nearly four months old. They alleged that Margaret (whom we will refer to as claimant) had suffered encephalopathy after the DPT vaccination, and they relied on the table scheme to make out a prima facie case. The Act defines encephalopathy as “any significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of the brain,” 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-14(b)(3)(A), and lists the condition on the Vaccine Injury Table in association with the DPT vaccine. Under the Act, a claimant who does not prove actual causation must show that “the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or of the significant aggravation” of encephalopathy occurred within three days of a DPT vaccination in order to make out a prima facie right to compensation. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i); 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-14(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

The Special Master found that claimant had suffered clonic seizures on the evening after her vaccination and again the following morning, App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a, 27a, and accepted those seizures as symptoms of encephalopathy. He also found, however, that by the time claimant received the vaccination she was “clearly microcephalic” (meaning that she had a head size more than two standard deviations below the mean for a girl her age) and that her microcephaly was a symptom or evidence of encephalopathy that existed before the vaccination. Id., at 32a-33a. Accordingly, the Master concluded that the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of claimant’s encephalopathy had occurred before the vaccination and the ensuing 3-day period provided for in the table. Id., at 34a.

The Master then considered whether the series of seizures was “the first symptom or manifestation ... of [a] significant aggravation” of the claimant’s encephalopathy, 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i), and again decided that it was not. The Act defines “significant aggravation” as “any change for the worse in a preexisting condition which results in markedly greater disability, pain, or illness accompanied by substantial deterioration of health.” § 300aa-33(4). The Master found that “[t]here is nothing to distinguish this case from what would reasonably have been expected considering [claimant’s] microcephaly. . . . [T]here was nothing that occurred in temporal relationship to the DPT vaccination which indicates that it is more likely than not that the vaccine permanently aggravated her condition. . . . [T]he seizures did not continue and there was no dramatic turn for the worse in her condition .... Thus, there is no basis for implicating the vaccine as the cause of any aspect of [claimant’s] present condition.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a-48a. Because he found that claimant had failed to satisfy the table requirements, and had not tried to prove actual causation, the Master denied her compensation for failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Court of Federal Claims found the Master’s decision neither arbitrary nor otherwise unlawful, see 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-12(e)(2) (1988 ed., Supp. V), and affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then reversed, holding that a claimant satisfies the table requirements for the “first symptom or manifestation of the onset” of an injury whenever she shows that any symptom or manifestation of a listed condition occurred within the time period after vaccination specified in the table, even if there was evidence of the condition before the vaccination. Because claimant here showed symptoms of encephalopathy during the 3-day period after her DPT vaccination, the Court of Appeals concluded for that reason alone that she had made out a prima facie entitlement to recovery. 17 F. 3d 374, 376-377 (1994).

The Court of Appeals went on to say that the Secretary had failed to rebut this prima facie case because she had not shown that claimant’s encephalopathy was caused by “factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine,” 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). The Court of Appeals relied on the provision that a “facto[r] unrelated” cannot include an “idiopathic” condition, § 300aa-13(a)(2)(A), which the court read to mean that even when the Secretary can point to a specific factor, unrelated to the vaccine, as the source of a claimant’s injury, she does not defeat a prima facie case when the cause of the identified factor is itself unknown. Taking the Secretary to have relied on claimant’s microcephaly as the unrelated factor (or as associated with it), the court ruled the Secretary’s evidence insufficient on the ground that the cause of microcephaly is unknown. 17 F. 3d, at 377-378.

We granted certiorari to address the Court of Appeals’s construction of the Act’s requirements for making and rebutting a prima facie case. 513 U. S. 959 (1994). Because we hold that the court erroneously construed the provisions defining a prima facie case under the Act, we reverse without reaching the adequacy of the Secretary’s rebuttal.

II

The Court of Appeals declared that nowhere does the Act “expressly state” that a claimant relying on the table to establish a prima facie case for compensation must show “that the child sustained no injury prior to administration of the vaccine,” that is, that the first symptom of the injury occurred after vaccination. 17 F. 3d, at 376. This statement simply does not square with the plain language of the statute. In laying out the elements of a prima facie case, the Act provides that a claimant relying on the table (and not alleging significant aggravation) must show that “the first symptom or manifestation of the onset... of [her table illness] . . . occurred within the time period after vaccine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” §300aa-ll(c)(l)(C)(i). If a symptom or manifestation of a table injury has occurred before a claimant’s vaccination, a symptom or manifestation after the vaccination cannot be the first, or signal the injury’s onset. There cannot be two first symptoms or onsets of the same injury. Thus, a demonstration that the claimant experienced symptoms of an injury during the table period, while necessary, is insufficient to make out a prima facie case. The claimant must also show that no evidence of the injury appeared before the vaccination.

In coming to the contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on language in the table, which contains the heading, “Time period for first symptom or manifestation of onset . . . after vaccine administration.” 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-14(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Court of Appeals saw a “significant” distinction, 17 F. 3d, at 376, between this language and that of 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i), which is set forth above. We do not. The key to understanding the heading is the word “onset.” Since the symptom or manifestation occurring after the vaccination must be evidence of the table injury’s onset, an injury manifested before the vaccination could qualify only on the theory that it could have two onsets, one before the vaccination, one after it. But it cannot: one injury, one onset. Indeed, even if the language of the heading did conflict with the text of § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i), the latter would prevail, since the table heading was obviously meant to be a short form of the text preceding it.

The Court of Appeals sought to shore up the contrary conclusion with two further arguments. As the court read the Act, Congress “expressly made the absence of preexisting injury an element of the prima facie case” for residual seizure disorder (another table injury), 17 F. 3d, at 376; thus, the court reasoned, Congress had implicitly rejected any need to negate the pre-existence of other injuries like encephalopathy. This argument rests on a misreading of the language in question. The statutory notes explaining the table provide that a claimant “may be considered to have suffered a residual seizure disorder if [she] did not suffer a seizure or convulsion unaccompanied by fever or accompanied by a fever of less than 102 degrees Fahrenheit before the first seizure or convulsion after the administration of the vaccine involved . . . .” § 300aa-14(b)(2). But this is not the language that requires a claimant alleging a seizure disorder to demonstrate the absence of pre-existing symptoms. This provision specifies instead that certain types of seizures (those accompanied by a high fever) may not be considered symptoms of residual seizure disorder, and, so, do not preclude a prima facie case even when a claimant suffered them before vaccination. The language carries no implication about a claimant’s burden generally and does nothing to undermine Congress’s global provision that a claimant who has actually suffered symptoms of a listed injury before vaccination cannot make out a prima facie case of the injury’s onset after vaccination.

Finally, we cannot accept the Court of Appeals’s argument that because the causal “factors unrelated” on which the Secretary may rely to defeat a prima facie case can include occurrences before vaccination, see § 300aa-13(a)(2)(B), such occurrences cannot bar the establishment of a prima facie case in the first instance. The “factors unrelated” provision is wholly independent of the first-symptom and onset provisions, serving the distinct purpose of allowing the Secretary to defeat a claim even when an injury has not manifested itself before vaccination. It does not relieve a claimant of the clear statutory requirements for making out a prima facie case.

Ill

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom Justice Breyer joins,

concurring.

Margaret Whitecotton was born in 1975 with a condition known as microcephaly, defined commonly (but not universally) as a head size smaller than two standard deviations below the norm. At the age of four months, she received a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccination. Prior to receiving her vaccine, Margaret had never had a seizure. The day after receiving her vaccine, she suffered a series of seizures that required three days of hospitalization. Over the next five years, Margaret had intermittent seizures. She now has cerebral palsy and hip and joint problems and cannot communicate verbally. In 1990, Margaret’s parents applied for compensation for her injuries under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Special Master denied compensation, and the Court of Federal Claims agreed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, 17 F. 3d 374 (1994), finding that the Whitecottons had made out a prima facie case for compensation.

Although I join the Court’s opinion rejecting the Court of Appeals’ reading of the pertinent statutory provision, I write separately to make two points. First, I wish to indicate an additional factor supporting my conclusion that the Court of Appeals’ reading of 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i) is inconsistent with congressional intent. Second, I wish to underscore the limited nature of the question the Court decides.

Examining the language of §300aa-ll(c)(l)(C)(i), the Court properly rejects the Court of Appeals’ determination that a claimant may make out a prima facie “onset” case simply by proving that she experienced a symptom of a “table illness” within the specified period after receiving a vaccination. Ante, at 273-274. To establish a table case, the statute requires that a claimant prove by a preponderance of the evidence either (1) that she suffered the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of a table condition within the period specified in the table or (2) that she suffered the first symptom or manifestation of a significant aggravation of a pre-existing condition within the same period. As the Court rightly concludes, proof that the claimant suffered a symptom within the period is necessary but not sufficient to satisfy either burden; the word “first” is significant and requires that the claimant demonstrate that the postvaccine symptom, whether of onset or of significant aggravation, was in fact the very first such manifestation.

The Court relies on a commonsense consideration of the words “first” and “onset” in reaching this conclusion: “If a symptom or manifestation of a table injury has occurred before a claimant’s vaccination, a symptom or manifestation after the vaccination cannot be the first, or signal the injury’s onset.” Ante, at 274. I find equally persuasive the observation that the Court of Appeals’ reading deprives the “significant aggravation” language in the provision of all meaningful effect. The term “significant aggravation” is defined in the statute to mean “any change for the worse in a preexisting condition which results in markedly greater disability, pain, or illness, accompanied by substantial deterioration of health.” 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-33(4). If, as the Court of Appeals determined, a claimant makes out an “onset” case any time she can demonstrate that any symptom occurred within the relevant period, all cases in which children experience postvaccine symptoms within the table period become “onset” cases. The phrase “significant aggravation,” and any limitations Congress sought to impose by including language like “markedly greater disability” and “substantial deterioration of health,” are altogether lost.

To the extent possible, we adhere to “the elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 340 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 562 (1990). The construction adopted by the Court of Appeals contravenes this principle. Our reading gives effect to the “onset” and the “significant aggravation” language while according “first” its commonsense meaning.

Today’s decision is quite limited. The Court of Appeals had no occasion to address the Whitecottons’ challenges to the Special Master’s factual findings with respect to their daughter’s condition. We assume, arguendo, the soundness of his conclusions that Margaret Whitecotton suffered a preexisting encephalopathy that was manifested by her prevaccine microcephaly. But this may not be the case, and the Whitecottons of course may challenge these findings as clearly erroneous on remand. The Court of Appeals also did not address the Whitecottons’ argument, rejected by the Special Master, that their daughter suffered a significant aggravation of whatever pre-existing condition she may have had as a result of the vaccine. This factual challenge appears to be open as well, as does a challenge to the legal standard used by the Special Master to define “significant aggravation.”

We also do not pass on the Secretary’s argument that the Court of Appeals misstated petitioner’s burden under 42 U. S. C. § 300aa-13(a)(l)(B) (1988 ed. and Supp. V) in rebutting a claimant’s prima facie case. Given our holding with respect to the claimant’s burden, it is speculative at this time whether any effort on our part to evaluate the Court of Appeals’ approach to the “facto [r] unrelated” standard will find concrete application in this case. That said, the approach taken by the Court of Appeals, under which the Secretary may not point to an underlying condition that predated use of a vaccine and obviously caused a claimant’s ill health, if the cause of that underlying condition is unknown, may well warrant our attention in the future.

      The Court of Appeals’s language can also be read as casting doubt on the Special Master’s conclusion that claimant’s microcephaly evidenced a pre-existing encephalopathy. We express no view as to the validity of that conclusion.
      The Secretary has recently, issued new regulations that may affect the Court of Appeals’s definition of an idiopathic condition in future cases. These regulations apply only to petitions for compensation filed after March 10, 1995, and accordingly have no application to the present case. 60 Fed. Reg. 7678-7696 (1995).


author: Justice Thomas

text:
    FREIGHTLINER CORP. et al. v. MYRICK et al.
    No. 94-286.
    Argued February 22, 1995
    Decided April 18, 1995

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., concurred in the judgment.

      Charles Fried argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Richard G. Taranto, Edgar A. Neely III, Richard B. North, Jr., James A. Jacobson, and Cindy F. Wile.

      Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, Paul D. Scott, Paul M. Geier, and Phillip R. Recht.

      Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur H. Bryant, Leslie A. Brueckner, Robert M. Weinberg, Andrew D. Roth, James E. Carter, Raymond Brooks, and Charles A. Mathis, Jr.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association et al. by David M. Heilbron and Leslie G. Landau; for the American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. by Kenneth S. Getter, Erika Z. Jones, John J. Sullivan, Daniel R. Barney, Lynda S. Mounts, and Jan S. Amundson; for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., by Malcolm E. Wheeler and Richard P. Barkley; and for the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association by Glen M. Darbyshire.

      Briefs of amicus curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White and Larry S. Stew

        art; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley; and for Public Citizen, Inc., by Alan B. Morrison, Cornish F. Hitchcock, and David C. Vladeck.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

By statute, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to issue appropriate safety standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. Respondents filed lawsuits under state common law alleging negligent design defects in equipment manufactured by petitioners. Petitioners claim that these actions are pre-empted by a federal safety standard, even though the standard was suspended by a federal court. We hold that the absence of a federal standard cannot implicitly extinguish state common law.

I

This case arises from two separate but essentially identical accidents in Georgia involving tractor-trailers. In both cases, 18-wheel tractor-trailers attempted to brake suddenly and ended up jackknifing into oncoming traffic. Neither vehicle was equipped with an antilock braking system (ABS). In the first case, respondent Ben Myrick was the driver of an oncoming vehicle that was hit by a tractor-trailer manufactured by petitioner Freightliner. The accident left him permanently paraplegic and brain damaged. In the second case, the driver of an oncoming car, Grace Lindsey, was killed when her vehicle collided with a tractor-trailer manufactured by petitioner Navistar.

Respondents independently sued the manufacturers of the tractor-trailers under state tort law. They alleged that the absence of ABS was a negligent design that rendered the vehicles defective. Petitioners removed the actions to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. They then sought summary judgment on the ground that respondents’ claims were pre-empted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act or Act), Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq., and its implementing regulations. In respondent Myrick’s case, the District Court held that the claims were pre-empted by federal law and granted summary judgment for petitioner Freight-liner. Myrick v. Fruehauf Corp., 795 F. Supp. 1139 (ND Ga. 1992). Following the opinion in the Myrick case, the District Court granted summary judgment in the Lindsey action in favor of petitioner Navistar.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp., 13 F. 3d 1516 (1994). It held that under its previous decision in Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 875 F. 2d 816 (CA11 1989), cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1065 (1990), the state-law tort claims were not expressly pre-empted. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ alternative argument that the claims were pre-empted due to a conflict between state law and the federal regulatory scheme. We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 922 (1994). We now affirm.

II

In 1966, Congress enacted the Safety Act “to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents.” 15 U. S. C. § 1381. The Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish “appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards.” § 1392(a). The Act defines a safety standard as “a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria.” § 1391(2).

The Safety Act’s express pre-emption clause provides:

“Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.” § 1392(d).

The Act also contains a saving clause, which states: “Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.” § 1397(k).

The Secretary has delegated the authority to promulgate safety standards to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 49 CFR § 1.50(a) (1994). In 1970, the predecessor to NHTSA issued regulations concerning vehicles equipped with air brakes, which are used in trucks and tractor-trailers. Known as Standard 121, this regulation imposed stopping distances and vehicle stability requirements for trucks. See 36 Fed. Reg. 3817 (1971). Because these stopping distances were shorter than those that could be achieved with brakes without ABS, several manufacturers notified NHTSA that ABS devices would be required. Some manufacturers asked NHTSA to alter the standard itself because they believed that ABS devices were unreliable and rendered vehicles dangerously unsafe when combined with new, more effective brakes. In 1974, NHTSA responded that Standard 121 was practical and that ABS devices did not cause accidents. See generally Paccar, Inc. v. NHTSA, 573 F. 2d 632, 637-638 (CA9), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 862 (1978).

Several manufacturers and trade associations then sought review of Standard 121 in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court remanded the case to NHTSA because “a careful review of the extensive record” indicated that “the Standard was neither reasonable nor practicable at the time it was put into effect.” 573 F. 2d, at 640. The court found that NHTSA had failed to consider the high failure rate of ABS devices placed in actual use, id., at 642, and that “there [was] a strong probability that [ABS] has created a potentially more hazardous highway situation than existed before the Standard became operative,” id., at 643. Until NHTSA compiled sufficient evidence to show that ABS would not create the possibility of greater danger, the court concluded, the Standard would remain suspended. Ibid.

After the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Paccar, the agency amended Standard 121 so that the stopping distance and lock-up requirements no longer applied to trucks and trailers. NHTSA nevertheless left the unamended Standard 121 in the Code of Federal Regulations so that “the affected sections [could] most easily be reinstated” when the agency met Paccar’s requirements. 44 Fed. Reg. 46849 (1979). NHTSA also stated that the provisions would remain in place so that manufacturers would know “what the agency still considers to be reasonable standards for minimum acceptable performance.” Ibid. Although NHTSA has developed new stopping distance standards, to this day it still has not taken final action to reinstate a safety standard governing the stopping distance of trucks and trailers.

Ill

Despite the fact that Standard 121 remains suspended, petitioners maintain that respondents’ lawsuits are expressly pre-empted. We disagree. The Act’s pre-emption clause applies only “[w]henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect” with respect to “the same aspect of performance” regulated by a state standard. 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d). There is no express federal standard addressing stopping distances or vehicle stability for trucks or trailers. No NHTSA regulation currently establishes a “minimum standard for . . . motor vehicle equipment performance,” § 1391(2), nor is any standard “stated in objective terms,” § 1392(a). There is simply no minimum, objective standard stated at all. Therefore, States remain free to “establish, or to continue in effect,” their own safety standards concerning those “aspect[s] of performance.” § 1392(d).

Petitioners insist, however, that the absence of regulation itself constitutes regulation. Relying upon our opinion in Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151 (1978), petitioners assert that the failure of federal officials “ ‘affirmatively to exercise their full authority takes on the character of a ruling that no such regulation is appropriate or approved pursuant to the policy of the statute.’” Id., at 178 (quoting Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Bd., 330 U. S. 767, 774 (1947). Unlike this case, however, we found in Ray that Congress intended to centralize all authority over the regulated area in one decisionmaker: the Federal Government. 435 U. S., at 177. Here, there is no evidence that NHTSA decided that trucks and trailers should be free from all state regulation of stopping distances and vehicle stability. Indeed, the lack of federal regulation did not result from an affirmative decision of agency officials to refrain from regulating air brakes. NHTSA did not decide that the minimum, objective safety standard required by 15 U. S. C. § 1392(a) should be the absence of all standards, both federal and state. Rather, the lack of a federal standard stemmed from the decision of a federal court that the agency had not compiled sufficient evidence to justify its regulations.

IV

Even if § 1392(d) does not expressly extinguish state tort law, petitioners argue that respondents’ lawsuits are preempted by implication because the state-law principle they seek to vindicate would conflict with federal law. We have recognized that a federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively, English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 78-79 (1990), or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. We have found implied conflict pre-emption where it is “impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements,” id., at 79, or where state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).

A

As an initial matter, we must address the argument that we need not reach the conflict pre-emption issue at all. According to respondents and the Court of Appeals, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504 (1992), held that implied pre-emption cannot exist when Congress has chosen to include an express pre-emption clause in a statute. This argument is without merit. In Cipollone we did hold that the pre-emptive scope of the two statutes at issue was governed by the language in each Act. That conclusion rested on a familiar canon of statutory construction and on the absence of any reason to infer any broader pre-emption. Instead of announcing a categorical rule precluding the coexistence of express and implied pre-emption, however, the relevant passage in the opinion stated:

“In our opinion, the pre-emptive, scope of the 1965 Act and the 1969 Act is governed entirely by the express language in § 5 of each Act. When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue, and when that provision provides a ‘reliable indicium of congressional intent with respect to state authority,’ Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 505, ‘there is no need to infer congressional intent to preempt state laws from the substantive provisions’ of the legislation. California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U. S. 272, 282 (1987) (opinion of MARSHALL, J.). Such reasoning is a variant of the familiar principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Congress’ enactment of a provision defining the pre-emptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not pre-empted. In this case, the other provisions of the 1965 and 1969 Acts offer no cause to look beyond § 5 of each Act. Therefore, we need only identify the domain expressly pre-empted by each of those sections. As the 1965 and 1969 provisions differ substantially, we consider each in turn.” Id., at 517.

The fact that an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute “implies” — i. e., supports a reasonable inference — that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters does not mean that the express clause entirely forecloses any possibility of implied pre-emption. Indeed, just two paragraphs after the quoted passage in Cipollone, we engaged in a conflict pre-emption analysis of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 79 Stat. 282, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq., and found “no general, inherent conflict between federal pre-emption of state warning requirements and the continued vitality of state common-law damages actions.” 505 U. S., at 518. Our subsequent decisions have not read Cipollone to obviate the need for analysis of an individual statute’s pre-emptive effects. See, e. g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U. S. 658, 673, n. 12 (1993) (“We reject petitioner’s claim of implied ‘conflict’ pre-emption ... on the basis of the preceding analysis”). At best, Cipollone supports an inference that an express pre-emption clause forecloses implied pre-emption; it does not establish a rule.

B

Petitioners’ pre-emption argument is ultimately futile, however, because respondents’ common-law actions do not conflict with federal law. First, it is not impossible for petitioners to comply with both federal and state law because there is simply no federal standard for a private party to comply with. Nothing in the Safety Act or its regulations currently regulates the use of ABS devices. As Standard 121 imposes no requirements either requiring or prohibiting ABS systems, tractor-trailer manufacturers are free to obey state standards concerning stopping distances and vehicle stability.

Second, we cannot say that the respondents’ lawsuits frustrate “the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines, supra, at 67. In the absence of a promulgated safety standard, the Act simply fails to address the need for ABS devices at all. Further, Standard 121 currently has nothing to say concerning ABS devices one way or the other, and NHTSA has not ordered truck manufacturers to refrain from using ABS devices. A finding of liability against petitioners would undermine no federal objectives or purposes with respect to ABS devices, since none exist.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia concurs in the judgment.

       ABS “helps prevent loss of control situations by automatically controlling the amount of braking pressure applied to a wheel. With these systems, the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) monitors wheel-speeds, and changes in wheel-speeds, based on electric signals transmitted from sensors located at the wheels or within the axle housings. If the wheels start to lock, the ECU signals a modulator control valve to actuate, thereby reducing the amount of braking pressure applied to the wheel that is being monitored.” 57 Fed. Reg. 24213 (1992).

       Standard 121 required air-brake equipped vehicles to stop within certain distances at various speeds without deviating from a 12-foot-wide lane, and without any wheel lock-up. 49 CFR § 571.121 S5.3.1 (1972). The initial stopping distance requirement from 60 miles per hour was 217 feet on a dry surface. The regulation also established brake actuation and release times, as well as other aspects of brake performance. Ibid.

       Because no federal safety standard exists, we need not reach respondents’ argument that the term “standard” in 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d) pre-empts only state statutes and regulations, but not common law. We also need not address respondents’ claim that the saving clause, § 1397(k), does not permit a manufacturer to use a federal safety standard to immunize itself from state common-law liability.


author: Justice Breyer

text:
    HEINTZ et al. v. JENKINS
    No. 94-367.
    Argued February 21, 1995
    Decided April 18, 1995
    Breyek, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      George W. Spellmire argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were D. Kendall Griffith, Bruce L. Carmen, and David M. Schultz.

      Daniel A. Edelman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Joanne S. Faulkner and Richard J. Rubin

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Bar Association by George E. Bushnell; for the Commercial Law League of America by Manuel H. Newburger and Barbara M. Barron; and for the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys by Ronald S. Canter and Rosalie B. Levinson.

        Robert J. Hobbs, Joan S. Wise, Deborah M. Zuckerman, and Alan Alop filed a brief for the National Consumer Law Center, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

        Andrew Rosen filed a brief for Sherry Ann Edwards as amicus curiae.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue before us is whether the term “debt collector” in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1692-1692o (1988 ed. and Supp. V), applies to a lawyer who “regularly,” through litigation, tries to collect consumer debts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it does. We agree with the Seventh Circuit and we affirm its judgment.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits “debt collectorfs]” from making false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices. The Act says, for example, that a “debt collector” may not use violence, obscenity, or repeated annoying phone calls, 15 U. S. C. § 1692d; may not falsely represent “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt,” § 1692e(2)(A); and may not use various “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect” a consumer debt, § 1692f. Among other things, the Act sets out rules that a debt collector must follow for “acquiring location information” about the debtor, § 1692b; communicating about the debtor (and the debt) with third parties, § 1692c(b); and bringing “[l]egal actions,” § 1692i. The Act imposes upon “debt collector[s]” who violate its provisions (specifically described) “[c]ivil liability” to those whom they, e. g., harass, mislead, or treat unfairly. § 1692k. The Act also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. § 1692Z(a). The Act’s definition of the term “debt collector” includes a person “who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed [to]... another.” § 1692a(6). And, it limits “debt” to consumer debt, i. e., debts “arising out of . . . transaction^]” that “are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” § 1692a(5).

The plaintiff in this case, Darlene Jenkins, borrowed money from the Gainer Bank in order to buy a car. She defaulted on her loan. The bank’s law firm then sued Jenkins in state court to recover the balance due. As part of an effort to settle the suit, a lawyer with that law firm, George Heintz, wrote to Jenkins’ lawyer. His letter, in listing the amount she owed under the loan agreement, included $4,173 owed for insurance, bought by the bank because she had not kept the car insured as she had promised to do.

Jenkins then brought this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit against Heintz and his firm. She claimed that Heintz’s letter violated the Act’s prohibitions against trying to collect an amount not “authorized by the agreement creating the debt,” § 1692f(l), and against making a “false representation of . . . the . . . amount ... of any debt,” § 1692e(2)(A). The loan agreement, she conceded, required her to keep the car insured “ ‘against loss or damage’ ” and permitted the bank to buy such insurance to protect the car should she fail to do so. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17. But, she said, the $4,173 substitute policy was not the kind of policy the loan agreement had in mind, for it insured the bank not only against “loss or damage” but also against her failure to repay the bank’s car loan. Hence, Heintz’s “representation” about the “amount” of her “debt” was “false”; amounted to an effort to collect an “amount” not “authorized” by the loan agreement; and thus violated the Act.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court dismissed Jenkins’ Fair Debt Collection lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The court held that the Act does not apply to lawyers engaging in litigation. However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment, interpreting the Act to apply to litigating lawyers. 25 F. 3d 536 (1994). The Seventh Circuit’s view in this respect conflicts with that of the Sixth Circuit. See Green v. Hocking, 9 F. 3d 18 (1993) (per curiam). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 513 U. S. 959 (1994). And, as we have said, we conclude that the Seventh Circuit is correct. The Act does apply to lawyers engaged in litigation.

There are two rather strong reasons for believing that the Act applies to the litigating activities of lawyers. First, the Act defines the “debt collector[s]” to whom it applies as including those who “regularly collec[t] or attempft] to collect, directly or indirectly, [consumer] debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” § 1692a(6). In ordinary English, a lawyer who regularly tries to obtain payment of consumer debts through legal proceedings is a lawyer who regularly “attempts” to “collect” those consumer debts. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 263 (6th ed. 1990) (“To collect a debt or claim is to obtain payment or liquidation of it, either by personal solicitation or legal proceedings”).

Second, in 1977, Congress enacted an earlier version of this statute, which contained an express exemption for lawyers. That exemption said that the term “debt collector” did not include “any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client.” Pub. L. 95-109, § 803(6)(F), 91 Stat. 874, 875. In 1986, however, Congress repealed this exemption in its entirety, Pub. L. 99-361, 100 Stat. 768, without creating a narrower, litigation-related, exemption to fill the void. Without more, then, one would think that Congress intended that lawyers be subject to the Act whenever they meet the general “debt collector” definition.

Heintz argues that we should nonetheless read the statute as containing an implied exemption for those debt-collecting activities of lawyers that consist of litigating (including, he assumes, settlement efforts). He relies primarily on three arguments.

First, Heintz argues that many of the Act’s requirements, if applied directly to litigating activities, will create harmfully anomalous results that Congress simply could not have intended. We address this argument in light of the fact that, when Congress first wrote the Act’s substantive provisions, it had for the most part exempted litigating attorneys from the Act’s coverage; that, when Congress later repealed the attorney exemption, it did not revisit the wording of these substantive provisions; and that, for these reasons, some awkwardness is understandable. Particularly when read in this light, we find Heintz’s argument unconvincing.

Many of Heintz’s “anomalies” are not particularly anomalous. For example, the Sixth Circuit pointed to § 1692e(5), which forbids a “debt collector” to make any “threat to take action that cannot legally be taken.” The court reasoned that, were the Act to apply to litigating activities, this provision automatically would make liable any litigating lawyer who brought, and then lost, a claim against a debtor. Green, supra, at 21. But, the Act says explicitly that a “debt collector” may not be held liable if he “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” § 1692k(c). Thus, even if we were to assume that the suggested reading of § 1692e(5) is correct, we would not find the result so absurd as to warrant implying an exemption for litigating lawyers. In any event, the assumption would seem unnecessary, for we do not see how the fact that a lawsuit turns out ultimately to be unsuccessful could, by itself, make the bringing of it an “action that cannot legally be taken.”

The remaining significant “anomalies” similarly depend for their persuasive force upon readings that courts seem unlikely to endorse. For example, Heintz’s strongest “anomaly” argument focuses upon the Act’s provisions governing “[cjommunication in connection with debt collection.” § 1692c. One of those provisions requires a “debt collector” not to “communicate further” with a consumer who “notifies” the “debt collector” that he or she “refuses to pay” or wishes the debt collector to “cease further communication.” § 1692c(c). In light of this provision, asks Heintz, how can an attorney file a lawsuit against (and thereby communicate with) a nonconsenting consumer or file a motion for summary judgment against that consumer?

We agree with Heintz that it would be odd if the Act empowered a debt-owing consumer to stop the “communications” inherent in an ordinary lawsuit and thereby cause an ordinary debt-collecting lawsuit to grind to a halt. But, it is not necessary to read § 1692c(c) in that way — if only because that provision has exceptions that permit communications “to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke” or “intends to invoke” a “specified remedy” (of a kind “ordinarily invoked by [the] debt collector or creditor”). §§ 1692c(c)(2), (3). Courts can read these exceptions, plausibly, to imply that they authorize the actual invocation of the remedy that the collector “intends to invoke.” The language permits such a reading, for an ordinary court-related document does, in fact, “notify” its recipient that the creditor may “invoke” a judicial remedy. Moreover, the interpretation is consistent with the statute’s apparent objective of preserving creditors’ judicial remedies. We need not authoritatively interpret the Act’s conduct-regulating provisions now, however. Rather, we rest our conclusions upon the fact that it is easier to read § 1692c(c) as containing some such additional, implicit, exception than to believe that Congress intended, silently and implicitly, to create a far broader exception, for all litigating attorneys, from the Act itself.

Second, Heintz points to a statement of Congressman Frank Annunzio, one of the sponsors of the 1986 amendment that removed from the Act the language creating a blanket exemption for lawyers. Representative Annunzio stated that, despite the exemption’s removal, the Act still would not apply to lawyers’ litigating activities. Representative Annunzio said that the Act

“regulates debt collection, not the practice of law. Congress repealed the attorney exemption to the act, not because of attorney[s’] conduct in the courtroom, but because of their conduct in the backroom. Only collection activities, not legal activities, are covered by the act.... The act applies to attorneys when they are collecting debts, not when they are performing tasks of a legal nature. . . . The act only regulates the conduct of debt collectors, it does not prevent creditors, through their attorneys, from pursuing any legal remedies available to them.” 132 Cong. Rec. 30842 (1986).

This statement, however, does not persuade us.

For one thing, the plain language of the Act itself says nothing about retaining the exemption in respect to litigation. The line the statement seeks to draw between “legal” activities and “debt collection” activities was not necessarily apparent to those who debated the legislation, for litigating, at first blush, seems simply one way of collecting a debt. For another thing, when Congress considered the Act, other Congressmen expressed fear that repeal would limit lawyers’ “ability to contact third parties in order to facilitate settlements” and “could very easily interfere with a client’s right to pursue judicial remedies.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-405, p. 11 (1985) (dissenting views of Rep. Hiler). They proposed alternative language designed to keep litigation activities outside the Act’s scope, but that language was not enacted. Ibid. Further, Congressman Annunzio made his statement not during the legislative process, but after the statute became law. It therefore is not a statement upon which other legislators might have relied in voting for or against the Act, but it simply represents the views of one informed person on an issue about which others may (or may not) have thought differently.

Finally, Heintz points to a “Commentary” on the Act by the FTC’s staff. It says:

“Attorneys or law firms that engage in traditional debt collection activities (sending dunning letters, making collection calls to consumers) are covered by the [Act], but those whose practice is limited to legal activities are not covered.” Federal Trade Commission — Statements of General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50100 (1988) (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

We cannot give conclusive weight to this statement. The Commentary of which this statement is a part says that it “is not binding on the Commission or the public.” Id., at 50101. More importantly, we find nothing either in the Act or elsewhere indicating that Congress intended to authorize the FTC to create this exception from the Act’s coverage— an exception that, for the reasons we have set forth above, falls outside the range of reasonable interpretations of the Act’s express language. See, e. g., Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 120-122 (1994); see also Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F. 3d 1507, 1513 (CA9 1994) (FTC staff’s statement conflicts with Act’s plain language and is therefore not entitled to deference); Scott v. Jones, 964 F. 2d 314, 317 (CA4 1992) (same).

For these reasons, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that the Act applies to attorneys who “regularly” engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation. Its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.