New Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional COVID Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme.
The Fight Against COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Compensation Program
A new lawsuit claims that the federal program responsible for compensating individuals for COVID-19 vaccine injuries is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) is being criticized as a “kangaroo court” that disregards Americans’ constitutional rights, including due process. The plaintiffs, who experienced issues such as Bell’s palsy after vaccination, argue that the program lacks transparency and fails to provide relief through the judicial branch.
The lawsuit demands changes to the program, including the disclosure of the identities of those reviewing claims, confirmation of their impartiality, and a process for claimants to gather evidence. The suit also challenges the immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.
Related Stories
- 14,615 Reports of Mental Disorders Overwhelm Vaccine Injury Historic Data - 10/7/2023
- Study Finds Signs of Heart Injury in Vaccinated People Without Chest Pain – 9/27/2023
The lawsuit argues that the CICP violates due process rights, lacking hearings and meaningful opportunities for claimants to be heard. The government’s refusal to disclose decision-makers, standards, and materials used further undermines the program’s legitimacy. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which oversees the CICP, and the Department of Health and Human Services have not responded to requests for comment.
The CICP was established in 2005 to compensate individuals injured by certain products. COVID-19 vaccines were included in the program when the Health Secretary declared a national emergency in March 2020. The program’s governing act, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, also grants vaccine manufacturers near-total immunity.
Lost Records, No Timelines
Emma Burkey, a high school senior, suffered a brain bleed and blood clotting after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine. She has faced extensive medical bills and ongoing therapy. Despite applying to the CICP, she has been met with delays and uncertainty.
Michelle Zimmerman, a teacher, experienced severe allergic shock shortly after receiving a Johnson & Johnson shot. She continues to suffer from impaired vision and hair loss. Her claim to the CICP was initially lost, and she has yet to receive a determination.
The lawsuit demands changes to the CICP, including transparency in the decision-making process and a timeline for claim acceptance or rejection. The plaintiffs argue that the program’s current lack of accountability and delays have caused significant harm to individuals who are unable to afford necessary medical treatments.
New Court?
The lawsuit calls for judicial review of claims made to the CICP, similar to the process established by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). However, Congress has yet to approve bills proposing the transfer of CICP claims to the VICP. React19, a support group for vaccine-injured individuals, supports the move to the VICP but joined the lawsuit due to the lack of progress.
The Vaccine Injured Petitioners Bar Association acknowledges the plaintiffs’ frustrations with the CICP but believes that the VICP is the appropriate venue for COVID-19 vaccine injury claims. The VICP has awarded over $4 billion to individuals injured by vaccines since its inception in 1986.
Rejections
Some plaintiffs, including Cody Flint and Dr. Joel Wallskog, had their claims rejected by the CICP despite presenting strong evidence of vaccine-related injuries. The program’s administrators have cited a lack of compelling evidence as the reason for denial. However, the CICP has only paid four individuals out of 32 approved claims, totaling a mere $8,592.89.
The lawsuit highlights the need for reform in the CICP to ensure fair compensation for COVID-19 vaccine injuries and protect individuals’ constitutional rights.
How has the lack of transparency and accountability within the CICP affected the claimant’s suffering and overall status of her claim?
Tainty about the status of her claim. This lack of transparency and accountability within the CICP has only exacerbated her suffering. Similar stories of individuals experiencing adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine and struggling to receive compensation have also come to light, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the program.
One major concern raised by the lawsuit is the immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. This immunity shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for any harm caused by their products. While this measure was put in place to incentivize the production and distribution of vaccines during a public health crisis, it also prevents individuals who have suffered injuries from seeking appropriate compensation.
The plaintiffs argue that this blanket immunity unfairly places the burden on the injured party, denying them their right to seek justice through the judicial system. By challenging the constitutionality of this provision, the lawsuit seeks to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable for any negligence or wrongdoing.
Another issue raised by the lawsuit is the lack of transparency and due process within the CICP. The plaintiffs assert that the program operates as a “kangaroo court,” denying individuals their constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing. They claim that decision-makers for the program are undisclosed, leaving claimants without any knowledge of who is reviewing their case. This lack of transparency undermines the legitimacy of the program and raises questions about its fairness.
Furthermore, the lawsuit demands that claimants be allowed to gather evidence to support their claims. Currently, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to demonstrate that their injuries were a direct result of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, without access to the necessary resources and information, this becomes an almost impossible task. By providing a process for claimants to gather evidence, the plaintiffs seek to level the playing field and ensure that individuals have a fair chance at receiving compensation for their injuries.
The importance of addressing these issues cannot be overstated. As more and more individuals are vaccinated against COVID-19, it is crucial that a fair and equitable compensation program is in place to provide support to those who may suffer vaccine-related injuries. The current deficiencies within the CICP not only undermine the trust in the program but also deny individuals their constitutional rights.
It is now up to the courts to determine the validity of these claims and whether changes need to be implemented within the CICP. The outcome of this lawsuit will have significant implications for the rights of individuals who have suffered vaccine injuries and will serve as a critical step in ensuring a just and fair compensation program for all.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
