Supreme Court Will Look at National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

After receiving a type of D.T.P vaccine at 6 months old, Hannah suffered seizures that resulted in developmental problems. D.T.P vaccines protect against three potentially fatal childhood diseases – diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. The type of vaccine Hannah was given is not used anymore.

Hannah’s parents have been very outspoken that they aren’t opposed to vaccines, but do want to make sure that the safety of vaccines is present and constantly enhanced.

Hannah’s parents previously brought a claim to the vaccine court. Sadly, Hannah’s alleged injuries were removed from the qualified compensation list just a month before her case was heard, and her claim was rejected. Her parents then filed a product liability lawsuit against Wyeth, which is part of the Pfizer brand. All lower court judges have ruled the claims to be barred by the Vaccine Act. Hannah and her family have yet to receive any compensation for the ongoing cost of care burden. The family is now contending that the vaccine manufacturer knew that there was a safer version of the vaccine, but failed to produce it; an accusation that the manufacturing company denies.

The U.S. Supreme Court review will focus on a very narrow question – Did Congress intend to bar lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers based on the design defect claims when passing the Vaccine Act?  Vaccine design defect claims assert that a manufacturer should’ve sold an alternative vaccine that would’ve been safer than the one they opted to use, which is exactly what Hannah’s family alleges. Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, vaccine claims proceed through a legal system called the “vaccine court.” A person is only compensated if the injury falls under those established as “caused by a vaccine.” 

Some say this no-fault system established by Congress protects manufacturers from nearly all product liability suits…instead of balancing the need to provide compensation for those injured and protecting manufacturers against undue litigation. I personally agree.
 
While the safety of vaccines and the Vaccine Act itself is the heart of this case, there’s no overlooking the implications the case will have for other vaccine related litigation, including lawsuits that link vaccines to autism. Between 6,000 and 8,000, or roughly 75%, of all claims filed in vaccine court are autism related. Advocates of the status quo claim it would no longer be economically feasible for manufacturers to make vaccines if autism-related cases go forward, a stance that many contrarily use to highlight the vast scope of how many are affected by the alleged link. 

In any event, the results of the Supreme Court case being heard today will have far reaching implications for either drug manufacturers or those injured by vaccines.