Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
North Carolina Family Granted Permission to Sue Over COVID-19 Vaccine Dispute
A mother and her son from North Carolina can legally challenge a public school system and a medical organization, following a state Supreme Court ruling. This decision allows them to sue for allegedly administering a COVID-19 vaccine to the boy without proper consent.
The ruling, issued on Friday, overturned an earlier lower-court decision that had blocked Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit. The court found that the federal health emergency law, which had been cited as a barrier to their case, does not preclude their legal action.
Background of the Incident
Smith, then 14 years old, received the vaccine in August 2021 at a vaccination and testing clinic set up in a Guilford County high school. According to the family’s legal complaint, Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19, particularly due to recent cases on his school’s football team. He arrived with the expectation of being tested, not vaccinated.
The family asserts that Smith made it clear to the clinic staff that he did not wish to receive the vaccine. They claim he did not possess a signed parental consent form that would allow him to receive the vaccination.
Claims of Unconsented Administration
The lawsuit alleges that clinic personnel disregarded Smith’s wishes. When staff were unable to contact Happel, a clinic worker reportedly instructed a colleague to administer the vaccine to Smith regardless of his expressed objections.
As a result, Happel and Smith filed a lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society. They cited accusations including battery and violation of their constitutional rights.
Earlier Court Rulings
In a prior ruling, a panel from the intermediate-level appeals court unanimously decided that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act provided immunity to both the school district and the physicians involved. This law is intended to protect those providing medical care during public health emergencies.
The state high court reaffirmed that an emergency declaration related to COVID-19 was put into effect in March 2020, activating the law’s protections. However, Chief Justice Paul Newby, in the court’s majority opinion, clarified that this law does not prevent the family from pursuing their case due to the alleged violation of their constitutional rights.
Legal Implications of the Ruling
Chief Justice Newby emphasized a parent’s right to make decisions regarding their child’s medical treatment and reinforced an individual’s right to refuse any non-mandatory medical intervention. He stated that the law’s language led the majority of justices to conclude that its immunity applies specifically to tort injuries, which refer to claims for damages resulting from negligent or wrongful actions.
Importantly, Chief Justice Newby noted that because tort injuries do not equate to violations of constitutional rights, the PREP Act does not disallow plaintiffs from filing claims related to constitutional violations.
Responses from the Justices
The ruling received support from the court’s conservative justices, including two who contributed a separate opinion. These justices suggested that the immunity provisions found within the federal law could be further narrowed.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Allison Riggs expressed dissent regarding the decision. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that state constitutional claims should be protected from the preemptive reach of the federal law. Justice Riggs accused the court’s majority of a misguided interpretation of the constitutional context.
Her critique included strong language, as she referred to the majority’s reasoning as a “fundamentally unsound” interpretation, claiming it effectively rewrites a clear statute to exclude state constitutional claims from its protections.
Broader Context of the Case
This case highlights ongoing debates regarding parental rights and medical consent, particularly in the context of public health crises. As schools nationwide navigated the complexities of administering COVID-19 vaccines, questions surrounding consent and ethical medical practices intensified.
Many parents have expressed concerns about the vaccination of minors, criticizing the processes used in some clinics and schools. This case in North Carolina serves as an example of how these issues can lead to significant legal disputes.
A Step Forward for Judicial Autonomy
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to allow this lawsuit sends a message about the importance of individual rights and parental authority in medical decisions. It promotes the idea that citizens can hold institutions accountable for their actions, particularly in sensitive situations such as vaccination programs.
As this case unfolds in the courts, its implications could ripple across the nation, influencing similar cases and discussions about consent, rights, and public health policy.
This ruling not only stands as a legal precedent but also serves as a reminder that the complexities of public health initiatives must consider ethical dimensions and the rights of individuals involved.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
