A Review of The Pharmacy Article on Shoulder Injury Resulting from Vaccine Administration
On November 18, 2017, an article was published in The Pharmacy Times by Ned Milenkovich, PharmMD, JD outlining possible liabilities of pharmacists as they administer vaccines. The writer correctly points out that “pharmacists who improperly administer a vaccine or fail to conform to industry-accepted norms could be found liable. These allegations would be directed to the pharmacist’s administration of the vaccine and not to the product itself”.
Let’s examine in greater detail what the writer is telling us. SIRVA or Shoulder Injury Resulting from Vaccine Administration is the leading injury for all petitions filed in the NVICP since 2015. It is the result of improper administration of a vaccine generally too high in the arm, in the shoulder joint or bursting of the bursa sac, causing severe pain and in many cases, surgery to correct the damage.
Most of these injuries occur in retail pharmacy or pop up vaccine shops in grocery stores or shopping malls. HHS and CDC acknowledge back in 2015 that the main reason is the poor training or in some cases, the lack of training. Lou Conte and I wrote about this very issue in AoA a couple of years ago.
Pharmacists and those who administer vaccines in retail pharmacies or pop up shops lack medical training to ask patient for contraindications or other medical conditions that should be discussed with doctor and patient. Lack of true informed consent and failure of duty to warn are two areas that are missing from most discussions.
A duty to warn is a legal concept indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so. In this example, did the pharmacist offer the VIS prior to the administration of the vaccine, allowed the customer to read and ask questions, and did the pharmacist ask the proper medical background questions prior? Highly doubtful since this practice is not followed by the “highly trained” doctors and nurses in a clinic or hospital setting.
Can someone who suffered a SIRVA injury file a civil law suit directly against the pharmacist and the pharmacy? You could. However, the best course of action for compensation of the injury probably resides inside the NVICP. Why?
SIRVA injuries are now considered an ON-Table injury within the NVICP and would be fast-tracked for adjudication and compensation if the proper medical records are in order. It would be faster and less adversarial than a traditional civil lawsuit. The petitioner will not pay for attorney fees and costs unlike a plaintiff in the civil suit. The Program allows for lost wages and future earnings compensation.
And there is still the legal possibility for those who filed compensation in the NVICP even after receiving payment for their injuries, to file a civil suit if that person believes the injury warrants further compensation. That has not been tested. But it could.
For all my writings and criticisms of the NVICP over the last seven years, this might be the first time that I state the Program is the best choice for those who have suffered a SIRVA injury.
Wayne Rohde, author of The Vaccine Court – The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Good discussion about the article outlining various possible liabilities of pharmacists as they administer vaccines. Informative article. Thank you.
Posted by: Sherif El-Refai | March 23, 2018 at 01:42 AM
I have heard there is a court case in process against the manufacturer's of oxycontin for misrepresenting the safety of the drug, and if case is won it could have implications for vaccines. What if parents could finally sue a doctor who failed to appropriately warn the patient of vaccine side effects, failed to take the appropriate family history, assured the parent that vaccines are safe and effective, that they shouldn't listen to anti-vaccination propaganda. What if California parents could sue the California State Legislature for assuring the public that vaccines are safe and effective, side affects are rare, don't cause autism, etc.'; basically for giving out bad information on vaccines.
Maybe the only way we are going to be able to restore our basic right to make decisions about our bodies and our children's bodies is by pressing these types of lawsuits. Very sad to say that...
Posted by: Kapoore | December 04, 2017 at 04:33 PM
Excluding the possibility that some will develop these conditions even with "appropriate" vaccine administration, this just reduces incentive to get employees trained effectively in vaccine administration safety, and the vaccine recipients are the ones paying for this perverse incentive.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 01, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Shelley; That word needs to get spread around.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 01, 2017 at 09:02 AM
By now most of you have probably Not heard that you can be sued due to shoulder injuries resulting from having administered flu shots (while physicians might not be liable for this). The federal vaccine court now has many reported flu shot injuries. Kindly look up "The National Vaccine Information Center." You might not have been taught anything about this in school-almost certainly not if you got your degree in India. You are putting Your career and livelihood at risk by agreeing to give flu vaccines. Now here is the kicker. Health Experts released the fact on Channel 7 News that the flu shot is only 10% effective. To look at it another way it has a 90% fail rate and with that, do you still want to put your career at risk? I think that they are exaggerating, it is probably much lower than 10%.
Kindly discuss this with your friends, family, and amongst your pharmaceutical gatherings and parties-see if vaccinating is right for you.
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | November 30, 2017 at 12:39 PM