“In this post I explain how one goes about proving a case in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), and how that differs from proving a case in the civil courts, focusing on what it means to have a no-fault program and proving causation. I will use a case that started with the tragic death of a young child after a vaccine to illustrate the complexity and operation of the program, and also to address the idea of federal preemption, and how it limits the ability of those claiming vaccine injuries to use state courts for their claims. ”
This is the manual about law and vaccines prepared in collaboration between myself, Amanda Naprawa and Voices for Vaccines. It covers a range of issues.
Vaccines: Regulating the Product
Protecting the Public Health: State and Federal Law
Disease Prevention: The CDC’s Role
School Immunization Requirements
Vaccines: Individual Choice and Community Welfare
Community vs. Individual: Achieving a Balance of Rights
Religion, Employment, and Rights
Parental Rights and the Child’s Right to Health
Informed Refusal: The Risks of Not Vaccinating
Increasing Immunization Rates: The Role of the Law
Government-Funded Incentives and Subsidies
Imposing Costs: Civil Lawsuits.
Imposing Costs: No-Fault Options
Limiting Unvaccinated Individuals’ Access
Vaccine Refusal and Criminal Law
Vaccine Injuries: Compensating the Rare Adverse Event.
NVICP vs. the Courts
Are Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe?”
The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice proposed a very problematic law that could mislead parents into not vaccinating because of false claims and would go against public policy. This post explains the problems with the law.
At the request of Congressman Darrell Issa, the General Accountability Office examined the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and made a report. This post summarizes the report and explains its findings, putting them in context.
In a series of articles in several news papers, authors reported on an associated press report and criticized the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for delays, claiming it mistreated petitioners. They used a case of an alleged vaccine injury to demonstrate the program’s faults.
This post explains the problems with the articles and with the use of the case in question:
On the background of attempts by anti-vaccine activists to do away with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, our no-fault program for compensating vaccine injuries, I explain why the program is better for petitioners than the regular courts.