A Vaccine Injury Case Goes to the Supreme Court
EBCALA
recently submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Cloer.
Nineteen other civil society organizations joined us to support petitioner Dr.
Melissa Cloer in her quest that her lawyers receive payment for having brought
her good faith, reasonable claim for injury compensation.
Dr. Cloer, an adult physician, petitioned the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 2005 after she developed multiple sclerosis (MS) from hepatitis B vaccines in 1996 and 1997. Despite the earliest symptoms appearing only a month after her last vaccination, it was not until 2003 that Dr. Cloer received the diagnosis of MS. In 2004, she learned of the possible link between MS and the hepatitis B vaccine in the scientific literature and applied to the VICP.
After three proceedings on the matter, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately ruled that Dr. Cloer’s claim, filed more than three years after her first MS symptom, was ineligible for compensation. While the Court of Appeals ruled her claim untimely, it did acknowledge that her attorneys had brought the case in good faith and on a reasonable basis, meeting the necessary criteria for them to receive legal fees.
Remarkably, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contested payment to Dr. Cloer’s attorneys and filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the issue on March 19, 2013. The 1986 National Vaccine Injury Act, which established the VICP, provides no time restrictions on legal fees. The Act states only that claims must be in good faith and on a reasonable basis.
Simply put, the issue before the Supreme Court is, will the VICP pay Dr. Cloer’s lawyers for having brought Dr. Cloer’s legitimate vaccine injury claim? HHS argues that lawyers should not be paid for bringing a claim ultimately found to be late.
The outcome will have a tremendous impact. Due to the nature of vaccine injury and the often-murky onset of symptoms, issues of timeliness are common. If attorneys can’t be sure they will be paid for good faith, reasonable claims, families of the vaccine-injured will suffer. While untimeliness may be grounds not to compensate the petitioner, it does not justify failure to pay lawyers for legitimate work. If HHS wins, attorneys will likely turn down all but the most extreme cases of vaccine injury.
And this may be precisely HHS’ point: to drive down the number of vaccine injury petitions filed. Families going forward may have to fend for themselves without counsel, with much lower chances of compensation, or simply forego litigation. Congress’s intent in the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Act was to provide a generous alternative to the tort system for vaccine-injured people; we trust the Supreme Court will uphold that intent in its decision.
EBCALA has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in high profile cases related to vaccine injury and autism, including Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and Cedillo v. HHS. EBCALA is proud to continue to advocate for the rights of vaccine-injured people, including many whose injuries manifest as autism. We would like to thank these organizations for joining us:
Age of Autism
Alan D. Clark, M.D. Memorial Research Foundation
Alliance for Human Research Protection
Autism Action Network
Autism One
The Canary Party
The Center for Personal Rights
Citizens for Health
The Coalition for Safe Minds
Generation Rescue
Maryland Coalition for Vaccine Choice
National Autism Association
National Autism Association New York Metro Chapter
The Office of Medical & Scientific Justice
Schafer Autism Report
Truth About Gardasil
Unlocking Autism
I heard early on in the vaccine debacle story that the future for the apparently unscathed children might include a surge in cases of MS , so this story leads me to believe that might be the case now .
Always good to see Doctors suing for vaccine damage ,I hadnt heard of this case before now , thankyou AoA for being the only reliable source of honest vaccine information .
I consider this story of great significance .
Posted by: White Rose | March 03, 2013 at 04:40 AM
I find it interesting that on one of the gardening websites -- there is a medical doctor - retired at age 40 due to arthritsis.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 02, 2013 at 08:46 PM
THIS MAY BE THE ONLY WAY IT WILL STOP, SO KEEP INOCULATING THOSE DOCTORS!!!
Jagannath Chatterjee,
"Vaccine injured doctor takes the battle to Supreme Court.
Dr. Cloer, an adult physician, petitioned the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 2005 after she developed multiple sclerosis (MS) from hepatitis B vaccines in 1996 and 1997. Despite the earliest symptoms appearing only a month after her last vaccination, it was not until 2003 that Dr. Cloer received the diagnosis of MS. In 2004, she learned of the possible link between MS and the hepatitis B vaccine in the scientific literature and applied to the VICP." http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/a-vaccine-injury-case-goes-to-the-supreme-court.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ageofautism+%28AGE+OF+AUTISM%29
Posted by: Sallie O. Elkordy | March 02, 2013 at 06:31 PM
Speaking of Autism Speaks ~ they just started this at Sprouts grocery stores. Customers are ask to donate $1.00.
Does anyone know what they are using the funds for?
Posted by: Allie90 | March 02, 2013 at 01:20 AM
The lawyers at HHS are rotten to the core, to actually fight to prohibit payment to the petitioners' lawyers. They are heavily coached and guided by "industry." I'm not too optimistic this Supreme Court is going to do the right thing...
Posted by: Les miserables | March 01, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Part of the reason why the vaccine-injured do not prevail is the fact that the judges in vaccine court do not know as much as the people who are injured. I know from my own experience that I would not have believed all I now know about vaccine injuries, mercury poisoning, and the very nature of toxicity. It is so interesting and so devastating. Who in the world would believe a "crazy" person telling a tale of woes?
The judges don't want to compensate the lawyers because they, in fact, think that this vaccine injury case was bogus to begin with. They have this idea that someone wants to rip off the government for a non-existing reason. If any of the people had walked in my shoes for the last 43 years, they would think differently. But they are naive, childlike, because they cannot grasp the nature of a victim of toxicity, and the fact that mercury poisoning is a very complicated matter.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 01, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Completly...
In any event, EBCALA continues it's effort to gain "justice" for those who have been denied "justice" far too long."
In the Uk we go years without a single payment from the vaccine Payment Scheme..just barn nothing...
time for change for sure..
Angus
Posted by: Angus Files | March 01, 2013 at 06:05 PM
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but this all just makes me frustrated. I'm not likely by nature, even if I was able by circumstances, to go this route personally, but now they are making it riskier/costlier to even bring a case to this bogus court. All the while these "public service" professionals take their salary. I'm offended that we are forced to pay these people for this deceptive "work."
If we cut out the entire HHS department, would we be any less healthy? Let politicians/bureaucrats see if they can serve the mega corporations in some other capacity? Overall, we may be healthier (though I think it is six and half a dozen) without all the moral hazard created by liability protection for those in "healthcare," and a false front of "safety regulation" and "injury compensation" on the part of those feigning to work for the little guy (I know many are not feigning, but how often in all this corruption does that become a career stymieing mindset), lulling people into choices they might make differently with more responsibility for the outcome of their recommendations and more personal research.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | March 01, 2013 at 04:46 PM
I have always wondered if any adult had ever been able to benefit form the vaccine court. We usually only hear about children. And you have to be pretty observant to know that an illness or disability was caused by the vaccine; you have to know a lot about the possibility of that happening. That information is usually only available to a doctor.
A scenario might be: Someone had received a vaccine, let's say for the purpose of visiting Africa, and then is not being diagnosed as having been injured by the vaccine until much later, let's say 5 years later because of the doctor avoiding the diagnosis. It seems that a diagnosis of vaccine injury is not likely to be made by the doctor who injected the substance because it would cause him extra work, not to speak of the possible grief. Is the patient supposed to know the extent to which the vaccine caused the injury?
The same situation, of course, applies to kids especially before the start of the internet age when finding information was next to impossible.
There is no way that I would have been able to tell whether any of my children were mercury poisoned by vaccines. Who instructed anyone to ask the right questions?
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 01, 2013 at 02:23 PM
Perhaps it was a simple oversight .. but .. I don't see Autism Speaks listed among the organizations supporting EBCALA?
In any event, EBCALA continues it's effort to gain "justice" for those who have been denied "justice" far too long.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | March 01, 2013 at 06:39 AM