North Carolina Supreme Court Revives Lawsuit Over Minor’s COVID-19 Vaccine Without Consent
The North Carolina Supreme Court has allowed a mother and son to proceed with a lawsuit against a public school system and a physicians’ organization. The ruling, issued Friday, reverses a lower court’s decision and permits the suit to continue, which alleges the boy was given a COVID-19 vaccination without parental consent. The lawsuit targets the Guilford County school system and a medical group.
Emily Happel and her son, Tanner Smith, initiated legal action after Smith, then 14, received a vaccine at a Guilford County high school clinic in August 2021. According to court documents, Smith reportedly protested the vaccination during his visit to a testing and vaccination site. Prior to the Supreme Court’s reversal, both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had sided against Happel and Smith.
Smith visited the clinic for a COVID-19 test following a cluster of cases on his school’s football team. The lawsuit states he was unaware vaccines would also be administered at the location.
Smith informed clinic staff of his unwillingness to receive the vaccine and that he did not possess the required parental consent for vaccination.
Despite failing to reach his mother for consent, clinic personnel allegedly proceeded with the vaccination, instructing staff to “give it to him anyway,” according to legal documents filed by Happel and Smith.
The lawsuit brought by Happel and Smith names the Guilford County Board of Education and the physicians’ group involved in operating the school clinic as defendants. The legal action includes claims of battery and violations of constitutional rights.
Justices Rule Federal Law Does Not Shield Against State Constitutional Claims
An intermediate appeals court previously ruled in favor of the defendants, citing the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). This act provides broad immunity to individuals and organizations administering “countermeasures” during a public health emergency. The appeals court panel unanimously determined the PREP Act protected both the school district and the Old North State Medical Society from liability.
The Supreme Court’s Friday ruling, authored by Chief Justice Paul Newby, noted that a March 2020 COVID-19 emergency declaration had triggered the PREP Act’s immunity provisions. However, Newby clarified that the federal law does not prevent the lawsuit from proceeding on the grounds of alleged violations of rights guaranteed by the state constitution.
Chief Justice Newby specifically highlighted the constitutional rights at issue, including a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of their child and an individual’s right to refuse unwanted, non-mandatory medical treatment.
The majority opinion, penned by Newby, interpreted the PREP Act’s immunity as applying solely to tort injuries – cases seeking damages for harm caused by negligence or wrongful acts. Newby reasoned, “Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.” The Supreme Court remanded the case, suggesting it could proceed to trial based on the constitutional allegations.
The court’s five Republican justices supported Newby’s majority opinion. Two of these justices also issued a separate concurring opinion proposing a further narrowing of the federal law’s immunity provisions.
Dissenting Justices Argue for Federal Preemption
Associate Justice Allison Riggs, supported by the court’s other Democratic justice, dissented. Riggs argued state constitutional claims should be preempted by the federal PREP Act.
In her dissent, Justice Riggs described the majority’s constitutional analysis as “fundamentally unsound.” She contended the ruling “explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity,” effectively distorting the PREP Act’s intention.