- Egypt rights center raided, 2 Mubaraks acquitted
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage constitutional
- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
Supreme Court says vaccine makers shielded from suits
High court cites 1986 federal law
Question of the Day
The “vaccine courts” have two methods to determine whether to award compensation: People must either prove the vaccine caused the side effects or show they suffer from specific illnesses that the government has listed among those for which compensation is automatic.
Ms. Bruesewitz’s parents went to the “vaccine court” in 1995 claiming she suffered residual seizure disorder, but the federal government had removed that affliction a month earlier from the list of illnesses for which it would pay compensation. Attorneys for Wyeth said that was because there is no evidence the vaccine causes residual seizure disorder.
The “vaccine court” ultimately determined that the Bruesewitzes did not prove the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine she received as a 6-month-old caused her afflictions. Ms. Bruesewitz was healthy before receiving the vaccine, and her symptoms, including major seizures, began hours after her immunization.
The Bruesewitzes then attempted to sue in state court, but a trial court and an appellate court ruled that they couldn’t because doing so would conflict with the 1986 vaccine act. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of those rulings.
The case was closely watched as nearly 6,000 claims linking autism and vaccines have been filed in “vaccine court.” If the court had ruled in favor of the Bruesewitzes, many of those cases could have gone to court.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
By Michael P. Orsi
Edward Snowden should declare his patriotism in court
- Citing 'unfair system,' Obama commutes sentences for 8 crack offenders
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson suspended indefinitely for gay quip
- Outrage over Phil Robertson suspension, 'malignant' political correctness
- Sebelius adds another Obamacare exemption
- Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Paul Rondeau exposes the propaganda, media tricks, and government policies that undermine our families, faith, freedom…and even life itself
Implement these actionable tips, how-to’s and best practices in 10 minutes or less to leverage online communications and technology for brand, business and career development.
The world impacts us. What happens in our towns, cities, states, country and on this planet makes a difference to us.
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow