or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinating on Schedule › A law professor's response to the recent Vaccine court briefing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A law professor's response to the recent Vaccine court briefing

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 

I hear a lot of criticism about the "vaccine court" and saw this posted on a facebook page and thought I would share it.  Here is the blurb 

 

"On November 7th, a congressional briefing, entitled “The Injustice of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)” was sponsored by “The Canary Party” and billed as a precursor to a hearing scheduled on December 4th in the Committee of Government Oversight and Reform. 

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a passionate vaccine advocate with intimate knowledge of the legal system and  Professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law, attended the briefing and provided the following post as her personal response to comments she heard there." 

 

The piece is very well written and explains a lot about how the vaccine court works and why this is beneficial to plaintiffs and society. This is one of the only pieces I have seen that really explains the process in an easy to understand format.  I'd love to hear your thoughts! 

 

http://shotofprevention.com/2013/11/08/congressional-briefing-attempts-to-discredit-vaccine-injury-compensation/

 

A couple good point she made 

 

"Ms. Holland highlights that most petitioners lose. She said 80% of cases lose, which means only 20% of plaintiffs win. My calculations were slightly different – I calculated the rate of winning to be 26% (3412 claims compensated out of 13077 adjudicated). While that might seem low, again a comparison is in order: In 2005, the last year for which we have data, plaintiffs won only 20% of non-asbestos product liability claims.  Product liability claims are simply hard to win. In whatever forum. Sending plaintiffs to the regular courts would not make proving the claims easier for plaintiffs. "

 

"Ms. Holland complains about the length of the trials. Ideally, victims would be compensated swiftly, but product liability trials are complicated, and can easily take a long time in the courts: of the trials lasting more than 3 years in the federal courts in 2009-2011, about half are product liability cases.  (See examples here and here.) We just cannot assume trials will be quick in the civil courts. In one example, Mr. Tenuto contracted paralytic polio from his daughter’s Oral Polio Vaccine. He had the choice of suing through NVICP but chose to go through the regular federal courts. Mr. Tenuto was injured in 1979. The case ended thirty years later in 2010. " 

post #2 of 3

.


Edited by ma2two - 11/11/13 at 10:10am
post #3 of 3
Thread Starter 

I disagree with a lot of what you said, but this is *not* the debate forum.  Why the heck do people from the INV forum keep posting here? Mods have made it *very* clear that you should stick to your own support forum. 

 

Bah, this is getting really frustrating. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinating on Schedule
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinating on Schedule › A law professor's response to the recent Vaccine court briefing