Federal Vaccine Law Challenged By Georgia Family
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 21st, 2008 // 7:29 am
Stefan Ferrari got his required vaccines before he was 18 months old. At the time, his parents say he was a healthy, verbal boy. But after his last round of booster shots, Stefan stopped speaking and, now 10 years old, he has not spoken since, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.
His parents, Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari of Atlanta, filed suit, alleging the vaccines caused neurological damage to their son. And yesterday, the family’s lawyer asked the Georgia Supreme Court to let the case proceed against two vaccine makers, Wyeth and Glaxo, according to the paper.
Their lawyer, Lanny Bridgers, told the court it was bad timing when Stefan received his last shots. A year later, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that thimerosal, a preservative used for multi-dose vaccine vials, be removed from childhood vaccines. The Ferraris contend the drugmakers should have made vaccines without thimerosal before Stefan was vaccinated, the paper writes.
But a lawyer arguing on behalf of the manufacturers told the state high court that the suit is barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. The law says no vaccine maker shall be held liable in a civil action for damages arising from an injury or death caused by vaccines given after October 1, 1988, the newspaper writes.
The exceptions are if the vaccine was improperly prepared or contained improper directions or warnings. Neither of these were involved in Stefan’s case, Daniel Thomasch, a lawyer for the manufacturers, told the court, according to the paper. “It was the clear intent of Congress to pre-empt precisely the claims that are at issue here,” he argued.
Congress passed the law after hundreds of lawsuits were filed against vaccine makers. The litigation increased insurance costs, drove out some manufacturers and threatened the continued production of some vaccines, even though the lawsuits were largely unsuccessful, Thomasch said, the paper writes.
“It has been a remarkably successful program,” he said of the 1986 law. “This wasn’t a rescue of the industry. It was an important step to make sure vaccines remained available in the United States.”
Seven of eight courts to consider challenges to the 1986 act have ruled in favor of the manufacturers. Last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals became the first court in the nation to rule the act did not pre-empt state law allowing such lawsuits, according to the newspaper. The manufacturers are appealing that decision to the state Supreme Court.
The lawyer for the Ferrari family told the justices that courts should review vaccine challenges on a case-by-case basis, not bar them completely. Otherwise, complaints must be brought in Washington before the US Court of Claims where there are restrictions on the amount of awards, he said.
“Did Congress really intend to create an opt-out provision that allows the child to be thrown out of court?” he asked the justices. “I think not.”
Dan
Why are vaccines such as the ones described in the post still given to kids, when a link may exist adverse to the health of the child.
My opinion, no shot or med should be mandated to any human being.
Also, preemption should not allow manufactures to have immunity for thier possibly deadly flaws.
Chris
Ed, you provide some valuable news on your site, but this information is marred by your need to give a voice to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wish to bring a lawsuit against Big Pharma or medical providers of some kind. It would be great if you were a little more selective. You are unfortunately doing a disservice here by promoting the scientifically baseless vaccine-autism connection. Are you looking to provide some marketing tools for ambulance chasers?
Chris
Lisa Van S
Chris,
I take it that you dont believe in the Constitution!…
Chris
Lisa,
I happen to, yes, and as a non-US citizen I think it is a wonderful thing. However, I am not the Chris who commented on this post, who I believe works in pharma. (I understand his views but have a broader opinion on what constitutes appropriate posts.)
Ed Silverman
Dear Chris,
With all due respect, if I were to post an item about every lawsuit filed against a big drugmaker, this site would have many, many more posts about such complaints, whether the legal issue raised was safety, pricing, employment matters, patent disputes, or shareholder issues, among other things.
Now, I do post about some lawsuits, yes. But I try to gauge the significance, which can vary depending upon the company or companies involved, the product, the party filing the suit and the issue(s) raised.
In this instance, I chose to post about the case in Georgia, courtesy of the Atlanta newspaper, because it does raise an important issue, which is mentioned in the following paragraph:
“Seven of eight courts to consider challenges to the 1986 act have ruled in favor of the manufacturers. Last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals became the first court in the nation to rule the act did not pre-empt state law allowing such lawsuits, according to the newspaper. The manufacturers are appealing that decision to the state Supreme Court.”
This case, therefore, will test the kind of challenge that other state courts haven’t permitted. I believe that’s noteworthy, because it has implications for a wide array of constituents - vaccine makers and children, not necessarily in that order, for starters.
In other words, the case suggests that the overarching issue about vaccines and autism remains in play. And I feel there is sufficient interest in the topic to pay attention when developments, such as this case, arise.
And I posted, by the way, without suggesting the argument is baseless or has merit. I’m happy to let the readers (viewers?) debate and decide that point, should they wish to do so.
Hope this helps,
ed
Chris
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your comment, you bring up some good points. I think I was a little quick on the trigger with my criticism, for which I apologize. Your first paragraph makes for a catchy story, but by failing to mention the lack of credible evidence towards any vaccine-autism connection, you come across as more than a little biased. But you’re right, the legal ramifications of this case are important.
Thanks,
Chris
Lisa Van S
Chris,
Typical Pharma Response. If their are no safety concerns in regards to vaccines, then why not release all the relevent raw data? Im not bias, Ive rcved vaccines myself…
Ed Silverman
Hi Chris,
No worries. As to the issue of credible evidence, again, that is something I believe is best left for others to decide, debate or dismiss, as the case may be. This family is free to bring its lawsuit and the word ‘alleged’ is used in regards to claims that the vaccine caused their son’s neurological damage.
I understand your point, but I posted this item because, again, it raises various issues that remain to be decided. I have to respectfully disagree that, by doing so, I am somehow biased one way or the other in regards to the connections between autism and vaccines.
There was no attempt to deliberately exclude info or inject my own views. I can assure you that, when I do have opinions, they are stated plainly. I avoided doing so in this post, whether through omission or comission. I don’t know if this helps, but it’s all I can say about this. [I would like to add, however, that I'm not attempting to end the discussion, simply that I don't know what else I can offer by way of explanation].
Again, thanks for stopping by,
ed