Legal Question - Any Guesses?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Legal Question - Any Guesses?
5
Fri, 06-12-2009 - 5:58pm

I'm just curious about something. I have read where vaccine company investors have sued the FDA for not approving a vaccine. Shouldn't the parent be able to sue the FDA because they did approve one? Or are the vaccine injured only allowed to sue in the one court - the vaccine injury court? Are the people limited to that one avenue?

I am just so sickened by what I'm reading! I couldn't help but wonder. 'Not planning on suing anyone myself, I'm just curious. I keep wondering what would happen if the truth were revealed via the local news (Autism truth that is). Society would go nuts. And if and when it does come out - will what's revealed be about autism alone? Or will they just go ahead and spill the beans about SIDS too? Asthma and allergies perhaps? ADD and ADHD...

Okay, I'll stop with the evil fantasy - but I'm still wondering the answer to the first question. Do the vaccine injured have only one avenue and can they not sue the FDA?

I'm sickened by the thought of the answer...seriously. To think we the people can sue the government if our bank account is harmed, but not when our precious children are harmed???

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 06-15-2009 - 8:03am
I do know that in a current lawsuit, the FDA is a defendant; however, that is aimed more towards procedural issues on how a vaccine was approved (as in they didn't follow their own regulations).

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Mon, 06-15-2009 - 10:20am

You must file a claim in Vaccine Court first, before filing a civil suit.

Most vaccine makers will fight vigorously to keep vaccine cases from going the civil route - the Georgia case is at the Supreme Court level right now I believe (Ferrari). There is some judicial precedent here also that isn't favorable to the family.

Here's a good read

http://www.dallasfortworthinjurylawyer.com/2009/04/3rd_circuit_kids_hurt_by_vacci.html

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear a case if they don't want to. However, this case is likely to get heard, and it's also likely for the Supremes to rule against the family.

-- Jamie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 06-15-2009 - 12:21pm

This kind of reminds me of the implications of FERES.


If say a design for a helicopter is submitted to the government by a manufacturer and it's designed and accepted as "good to go" - and something happens, God forbid, a mechanical defect and someone is killed or severely injured, in order for the manufacturer to be sued because the Government accepted it as is, it has to be proven that the manufacturer knowingly hid faulty results from the government, if such things exist. If the design was found to be good then no one is at fault, no one can be sued, and it's chalked up as "an unfortunate accident". The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and it takes a lot of burden of proof, especially where the government is involved.

Photobucket Photobucket

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Mon, 06-15-2009 - 1:09pm

They likely fight to keep cases out of the district and federal courts so they won't be subject to discovery. Procedural differences in the two venues are actually a bit of injustice to the injured. Not much we can do about it though.

Unplugging from the matrix.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 06-15-2009 - 1:18pm
Completely agree.

Rands