US Supreme Court to consider vaccination lawsuit

March 9, 2010

The US Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the parents of a child who suffered serious health problems after being vaccinated can sue a pharmaceutical company for compensation.

The case, which the highest US court will hear in autumn, will serve as a focal point in a years-long debate in the United States over the effectiveness of preventive vaccines and whether they have caused health problems.

It involves Hannah Bruesewitz, who was left developmentally impaired after receiving a , and pertussis vaccination.

Her parents are challenging decisions by two Pennsylvania courts that rejected their attempts to seek compensation from US pharmaceutical laboratory Wyeth, which made the vaccine.

The courts cited a 1988 law that prevents plaintiffs from seeking any "damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine."

But Bruesewitz's parents and the US Supreme Court noted a Georgia court ruling allowed parents to bring claims against vaccine manufacturers.

"After exhausting administrative remedies in the vaccine program, children in Georgia who are injured by vaccines may bring design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers when the use of safer alternative vaccines could have avoided their injuries," the Supreme Court wrote in agreeing to consider the case.

"By contrast, Hannah Bruesewitz and children like her... may be precluded from pursuing identical design defect claims even when the same safer alternative vaccines could have avoided their suffering too," it added.

The Supreme Court also said that the Pennsylvania courts used an overly broad interpretation of the 1988 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and "improperly" ignored conditional language that would allow compensation claims.

"By holding all design defect claims preempted, the Third Circuit (court) robs seriously-injured children and their parents of their right to seek compensation... when safer alternative vaccines would have prevented their injuries," the Supreme Court said.

Explore further: Known smoking dangers said no defense

Related Stories

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 4, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Doctors defend safety of vaccinations

March 8, 2008

U.S. health officials defended the safety of childhood vaccines after an agency conceded that a vaccine was linked to one child's autism diagnosis.

Do vaccines cause autism, asthma and diabetes?

June 11, 2008

Almost 70% of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children do so because they believe vaccines may cause harm. Indeed vaccines have been blamed for causing asthma, autism, diabetes, and many other conditions--most of which ...

Vaccines and autism: Many hypotheses, but no correlation

January 30, 2009

An extensive new review summarizes the many studies refuting the claim of a link between vaccines and autism. The review, in the February 15, 2009 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases and now available online, looks at ...

Recommended for you

How the finch changes its tune

August 3, 2015

Like top musicians, songbirds train from a young age to weed out errors and trim variability from their songs, ultimately becoming consistent and reliable performers. But as with human musicians, even the best are not machines. ...

Machine Translates Thoughts into Speech in Real Time

December 21, 2009

( -- By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2010
What a horribly written article. Who wrote the opinion from the Supreme Court? Where has it ever been shown that her seizures are caused by a vaccine?

I'll bet the case gets withdrawn on the danger of the Supreme Court ruling against the family and against anti-vax campaigns.
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2010
For another view and some more details about the Vaccine Court:


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.