Help Preserve the Right to Bring Vaccine Injury Claims to Civil Court
Would you like Vaccine Court to be the “exclusive remedy” for claims of vaccine injury? In other words, would you want the Omnibus Autism Proceeding decisions so far, and those to come, to be the last judicial word on autism and vaccines? See Autism File Article HERE.. I doubt it.
This is the issue at stake for the autism community in two cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to consider – Ferrari v. American Home Products and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. We need your help to preserve the right to bring vaccine design defect claims to civil court.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to hear two different cases on whether children with vaccine injuries have the right to take their claims for injuries from defective vaccines to civil court. These two cases interpret the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in diametrically opposed ways. In Ferrari, the Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously upheld the right of a child to bring a vaccine design defect claim in civil court after having properly filed in Vaccine Court first. In Bruesewitz, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided that no person may bring a vaccine design defect claim to civil court at all; Vaccine Court is the “exclusive remedy.” The U.S. Supreme Court has already asked the Department of Justice to weigh in – signaling that the Court is at least considering taking on this on.
Because state laws compel vaccination, it is essential that industry and government have real incentives to produce the safest vaccines possible. To achieve such incentives, Congress drafted a law to ensure that the vaccine injured have access to civil court in cases of design defect, criminal fraud, gross negligence and when vaccine court offers too little compensation or none at all. In the Bruesewitz case, after many years, Vaccine Court offered Hannah Bruesewitz no compensation at all for her disability and seizure disorder that developed shortly after her third DPT shot. Vaccine Court is not even empowered to hear her claim that the DPT vaccine she received was defective, although two children died and sixty-five reported adverse reactions from her vaccine lot. The Third Circuit has ruled that vaccine manufacturers have blanket immunity against design defect claims under the 1986 law.
We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court’s flawed decision and to uphold the lawful rights of vaccine-injured children. Under the 1986 law, an injured child has the right to a day in court so that a jury can decide, based on the evidence, whether a manufacturer’s vaccine design caused the child’s injury.
We are seeking additional organizations – autism-related and not – to sign this “friend of the court” petition. The draft amicus brief is HERE; the draft petition for Bruesewitz is HERE. Our deadline for signatures is Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 12:00 noon.
If you would like to sign on, please write to [email protected] and include the name of your organization, address, phone and a brief description of your organization, including who makes up the membership and how many people it represents; we will send you a confirmation.
Mary Holland, Esq. is a founding member of the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law & Advocacy and is the Director of the Graduate Legal Skills Program at New York University School of Law. She contributed reports on the Omnibus Autism Proceeding to Age of Autism in 2008. Educated at Harvard and Columbia Universities, Mary has been an advocate in the public and private sectors. She researches and writes on legal issues related to autism and vaccines.
Mary:
Thank you so much for pulling this brief together. The issues playing out in the courts are so important to our community. We are really fortunate to have you "in our court."
Posted by: Louis Conte | August 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Those of us who had children that regressed slowly and did not receive diagnosis' at all, have been completely left out. By the time we knew what was wrong and what has caused it, we were past the statute of limitations to file in vaccine court.
Thank you for fighting for the rights of the children to be heard in a real courtroom with real rules of evidence.
Posted by: Laura | August 26, 2009 at 09:04 PM
I just forwarded this to our VICP Federal Atty's office. He belongs to a few organizations and has one of his own. Hopefully he will pass this on to people that he knows.
I also put this on my FB to get it out to people that also belong to church groups and different organizations.
Thank you Mary. If you're ever looking for a good paralegal...look me up!!! This VICP and another case I'm working on are two of the many reasons I dropped out of medical training. It's people like you and Kent and our own atty's that continue to inspire me to do more.
Posted by: rileysmom | August 26, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Thank you Mary for your continued work on the legal front. Given the recent rulings in the US Court of Fed Claims, this is an urgent matter if we are to protect our legal rights.
Posted by: Theresa Cedillo | August 26, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Thank you, Gatogorra! This sounds helpful.
Mary Holland
Posted by: Mary Holland | August 26, 2009 at 03:21 PM
I would think a lot will depend on how airtight the wording was in the legal ruling that originally established the vaccine court.
If there's no specific wording about the vaccine court being the "exclusive remedy" or prohibits people from also filing civil suits, then there may be a loop hole. If anyone track down the law the established US vaccine court, then we may be able to find any legal basis to prevent filing a civil suits...any lawyers here?
Posted by: Sarah | August 26, 2009 at 03:00 PM
I just forwarded this article and other material on the Amicus briefs and Ferrari and Bruesewitz cases to several advocacy organizations, one of which I'm a member of, which deal with pharmaceutical corruption and conflicts. Though these groups tend to be supportive of vaccine injury issues, they don't focus exclusively on this perspective.
Posted by: Gatogorra | August 26, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Dear Benedetta,
A church would be excellent -- we would like to show that the religious community cares about this "access to justice" issue. Please feel free to send in individual or family sign-ons, but we may not be able to use them all -- our focus will be to show that this is an issue of "national importance" by highlighting groups with large and diverse memberships.
Thank you,
Mary Holland
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Could the organization be a church?
Posted by: Benedetta Stilwell | August 26, 2009 at 08:08 AM
Can you sign it if the organization is a family?
Posted by: Benedetta Stilwell | August 26, 2009 at 08:04 AM