Tuesday saw the Supreme Court struggling to
discern the balance the US Congress had intended to strike with a 1989 system
of compensation for people who suffered injury though vaccines; some law suits
were banned, but others not, against vaccine manufacturers.
A lawyer for a couple whose daughter was badly injured from a vaccine, David Fredrick has said their lawsuit should be allowed to stand: “We are talking about trying to eliminate some of the most horrifying and horrible incidents of injury from vaccines that we compel children to take.” According to Fredrick, the 1989 law was intended to allow compensation claims in both ordinary lawsuits as well as the special tribunal, called the vaccine court.
The defendant’s lawyer, Kathleen Sullivan, has countered that that approach would open up manufacturers to a slew of liability cases, which could drive away vaccine companies and jeopardize the US’s supply of vaccines.
The case in question is that of Hannah Bruesewitz, who received a vaccine from manufacturers, Wyeth, which is now a part of Pfizer, for diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus. Bruesewitz subsequently suffered seizures and has since suffered developmental problems as well as ongoing seizure problems since the 1992 injection as an infant.
The court case has become a surgical dissection of the language of the 1989 law, which bans ordinary law suits “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
