Vaccine makers breathed a sigh of relief after the US Supreme Court ruled on February 22 that the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who experienced seizures and developmental problems after receiving a Wyeth vaccine, did not have the right to sue the company in a state court. The Bruesewitzes claimed Hannah's problems began after she received the combined Corynebacterium diphtheria toxoid/Clostridium tetani toxoid/pertussis (DTP) vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. They brought their petition to a Pennsylvania state court after their case was dismissed by a special Vaccine Court set up by a 1986 Act over fears at the time that lawsuits would force companies to stop making vaccines. The Act says suits cannot be filed against manufacturers if the injury was “unavoidable.” In the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case, the petitioners argued that Wyeth, now owned by New York–based Pfizer, could have put a vaccine with fewer side effects on the market earlier and thus their daughter's injury was avoidable (Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1228, 2010). But the Supreme Court's Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed these claims stating that “drug manufacturers often could trade a little less efficacy for a little more safety, but the safest design is not always the best one.” Marion Burton, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, applauded the decision saying, “The Supreme Court's ruling keeps manufacturers from abandoning the vaccine market.”