{"id":9643,"date":"2024-07-03T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-07-03T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9643"},"modified":"2024-06-02T13:00:18","modified_gmt":"2024-06-02T18:00:18","slug":"state-supreme-courts-take-up-covid-19-vaccine-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9643","title":{"rendered":"State Supreme Courts Take Up COVID-19 Vaccine Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

JUN 02, 2024 – Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two state supreme courts are considering whether workers who administered COVID-19 vaccines to minors without parental consent should be shielded by a federal law.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to take up an appeal from Tanner Smith, one of the minors, and his mother, according to an order<\/a> dated May 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tanner, who was 14 at the time, went to a clinic at a school in his district, Guilford County Schools, in 2021 to receive a COVID-19 test. Instead, his mom and stepfather learned later, he was injected with a COVID-19 vaccine even after he told workers at the clinic he didn\u2019t want it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emily Happel, Tanner\u2019s mother, and the boy sued the district and the organization that was running the clinic, alleging battery and violations of constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A trial court ruled against them, though, finding that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) provides immunity to the workers.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The act, signed in 2005 by then-President George W. Bush, conveys immunity to administrators of covered vaccines except in cases of \u201cwillful misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the ruling<\/a> in March, despite designating the conduct carried out by the administrators \u201cegregious.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe must determine whether the scope of immunity covers the potential liability at issue in this case. We hold that it does because, as the trial court noted, the immunity provided by the act is extremely broad,\u201d Judge April Wood wrote in the unanimous ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPlaintiffs argue that the PREP Act does not cover their claims because they do not arise because of COVID-19, but merely happen to relate to COVID-19. We would be inclined to agree if the PREP Act did not define the scope of immunity so broadly,\u201d she added later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a filing<\/a> to the North Carolina Supreme Court, lawyers for Ms. Happel and Tanner said that the lower court decisions \u201crendered totally useless N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-21.5(a1) which prohibited the very acts committed by defendants<\/strong>.\u201d They also said that the trial court erred in finding that available evidence did not show the clinic workers were \u201cacting within the scope of their employment by administering a vaccine\u201d because that meant the court \u201cwould have required that administering vaccines without consent be a part of the employment duties of the vaccine clinic workers for a claim to stand.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

State Rep. Neal Jackson and seven other members of the state\u2019s General Assembly said<\/a> in a supporting brief that the lower court rulings wrongly overrode state law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PREP Act states in part that covered persons are immune from \u201call claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual\u201d of a covered vaccine. It defines loss as death, injury, fear of injury, or loss of or damage to property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNothing in the text of the PREP Act specifically and expressly speaks to a violation of the state constitution, especially the deprivation of a parent\u2019s right to determine the care, custody, and control of her minor child<\/strong>,\u201d the members said. They added later, \u201cIf allowed to stand, however, the decision of the Court of Appeals would permit any constitutional violation and immunize all manner of \u2018egregious\u2019 conduct so long as it is done in connection with the provision of a COVID-19 vaccine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guilford County Board of Education, one of the defendants, told<\/a> the state\u2019s top court that the matter is \u201ca straightforward application of federal statutory immunity\u201d and not deserving of a fresh look by the court. The Old North State Medical Society, another defendant, said it was in full agreement with the county\u2019s filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vermont Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Vermont Supreme Court, meanwhile, heard arguments on May 28 in a case involving a 6-year-old who received a COVID-19 vaccine despite his parents explicitly stating they did not want the child to receive the shot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The child was injected in 2021 at Academy School in Brattleboro even after Dario and Shujen Politella, the child\u2019s parents, had informed officials they did not want the child vaccinated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Speno, superintendent of the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union, apologized and blamed the injection on a mixup with name tags.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. and Mrs. Politella removed their child from the school and sued, alleging negligence, battery, and fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Vermont Superior Court dismissed the suit, finding that they needed to bring litigation in federal court under the PREP Act\u2019s willful misconduct immunity exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lawyers for the family in a brief<\/a> pointed to a U.S. appeals court ruling<\/a> from 2023 that found defendants failed to show the PREP Act covered their actions and directed the case back to state court. \u201cThat should happen here,\u201d the lawyers said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ronald Ferrara, one of the attorneys, told justices during oral arguments that the failure of school staff to listen to the parents is \u201creally the cause of harm in this case,\u201d the Vermont Digger reported<\/a>. He said that \u201cthe vaccine has absolutely nothing to do with it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the PREP Act immunity appears broad, disallowing the suit due to the law \u201ccreate[s] some bad public policy because this kind of mistake can be repeated without ever having any judicial review,\u201d he added later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vermont lawyers said that the lower court rulings were correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe weight of authority clearly comes down in favor of the defendants having immunity in this case, and the lack of consent is causally related to the administration of the \u2018countermeasure\u2019 by covered individuals, therefore immunity applie<\/strong>s,\u201d David McLean, a state attorney, told the justices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aaron Siri, the managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, who represents<\/a> plaintiffs in legal action challenging the PREP Act\u2019s compensation scheme, reviewed the cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnyone that injects a child against the child\u2019s wishes or without parental consent,\u201c Mr. Siri told The Epoch Times in an email, \u201dshould be criminally prosecuted and treated like any other criminal that engages in batter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

JUN 02, 2024 – Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times\u00a0 Two state supreme courts are considering whether workers who administered COVID-19 vaccines to minors without parental consent should […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9645,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[761,607,608],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-concerns","category-vaccine-news","category-vaccine-safety"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9643"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9643\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9644,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9643\/revisions\/9644"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}