Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The actual circumstances in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth illustrate why the Supreme Court’s decision is
misguided. Hannah Bruesewitz, hours after a diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine, developed
catastrophic brain injury and a lifelong seizure disorder. The only plausible explanation for the
harm to Hannah was her vaccine. Indeed, many other children were injured by the same vaccine
lot, yet the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the only court where Hannah could bring her
claim, denied compensation after years of litigation. Now the Supreme Court tells Hannah and
her family that there is no courtroom in the country in which she can obtain justice and
compensation for the years of care ahead that she needs.
The majority’s true intent appears to be to prevent several thousand tort cases claiming a link
between vaccines and autism from reaching civil court to assert that a dangerous vaccine design,
using mercury as a preservative, was defective. Sotomayor writes that this concern, to shield
manufacturers from litigation, “appears to underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this
case.”
According to vaccine safety advocate Louise Kuo Habakus, “The Court is telling parents that
they’re on their own. Parents know that 4 out of 5 cases of vaccine injury do not get
compensation in the misnamed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court has
slammed the courthouse doors shut.” Because the federal government recommends 70 doses of
16 “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, and states compel 30-45 doses for school attendance, this
issue affects all children.
CVS calls for Congressional hearings and action to amend the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act to reinstate the right to sue for vaccine design defect in civil court.