Mother, son sue school, doctors over vaccine given without consent
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a mother and son can sue a public school system and a doctors' group over allegations that the boy was given a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, according to the Associated Press.
Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith allege that Smith, then 14, received the vaccine in August 2021 at a Guilford County high school clinic despite his protests and without a signed parental consent form.
Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing the majority opinion, stated that the federal law does not prevent the lawsuit from proceeding on claims that state constitutional rights were violated.
According to the lawsuit, Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after a cluster of cases among his school's football team. He did not expect vaccinations to be administered there.
ALSO READ: CMS faces $100M funding cut as federal COVID stimulus expires
The family alleges that when the clinic could not reach his mother, a worker instructed another to administer the vaccine to Smith anyway. The lawsuit claims battery and violations of constitutional rights against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, which helped operate the clinic.
A panel of the state Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the defendants from liability.
The act provides immunity to individuals and organizations performing countermeasures during a public health emergency, activated by a COVID-19 emergency declaration in March 2020.
However, the Supreme Court found that the act's immunity only covers tort injuries, not constitutional violations. Associate Justice Allison Riggs dissented, arguing that state constitutional claims should be preempted by the federal law.
The case will now return to a lower court for trial, where Happel and Smith will pursue their claims of battery and constitutional rights violations.
VIDEO: CMS faces $100M funding cut as federal COVID stimulus expires
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: How Much More Positive Head Start Evidence Do We Need to Save It?
The Trump administration's first four months have been rough on U.S. children. They certainly don't deserve the punishment. From polarized and destabilizing politics to a global pandemic, increasing environmental pressures from climate change (and more), this cohort of children is coming of age in a particularly difficult moment. And yet, we have reached what is perhaps a zenith in Trump-era politics of disinvesting in children and families. The administration's response to America's youth crisis has been stunningly consistent: again and again, it has balanced occasional, vague promises to do something constructive to address child care costs or infertility challenges on the one hand with real and stunningly concrete attacks on children's well-being on the other. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Perhaps the most direct and comprehensive assault on children is coming through the administration's war on Head Start. At $12.3 billion last year, it's the federal government's largest-single investment in early learning, and it serves almost 800,000 children and families per year. Over its 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early learning as well as connecting around 40 million children and their families to comprehensive support services like health and dental care, nutrition and housing assistance. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump echoed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook in calling for Head Start's elimination. This was hardly novel: though Head Start has long enjoyed bipartisan support, a subset of conservative researchers, activists and politicians have spent decades attacking the program. While the administration's chaotic first 100 days decimated portions of the federal government supporting health and well-being, its attacks on Head Start have been uniquely unpredictable. In January, as Elon Musk and his underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency hacked away at the federal civil service, Head Start providers across the country reported that they were unable to access their normally scheduled federal payments. This posed a particular challenge for Head Start center directors navigating the tight margins that define the early education market; hundreds of early care and learning centers warned that they were at risk of closure. Related Later in the spring, the administration abruptly pulled funding from regional Head Start centers that offer resources, support and oversight for Head Start providers. Several weeks ago, it appeared that the administration was preparing to act more decisively to abandon U.S. kids and families who depend on Head Start. On April 17, the Associated Press reported on leaked documents indicating that the Trump administration would erase Head Start funding in its forthcoming budget proposal. Once this hit the news, Head Start supporters mobilized to save the program, and the administration reversed course. While it appears that the administration isn't (yet) ready to deliver on this promised assault on children's well-being, it's worth reminding ourselves just what a stunning mistake it would be to reduce this particular investment in U.S. kids and families. Related Head Start has been studied many times, and the results are broadly positive. Research on it — and other early education programs — finds a relatively consistent pattern: Early education programs are reliably good for families and at preparing kids for kindergarten There's some waning of positive academic impacts as kids go through K-12 But the long-term impacts of early ed investments are generally positive. First, Head Start appears to be particularly effective at helping children from historically marginalized communities. Perhaps most importantly in the present political context, early education programs tend to promote better child development outcomes that create cost savings for school budgets. This mostly results from pre-K programs like Head Start reducing the likelihood that children will later require special education services or need to repeat a grade. For instance, economist Tim Bartik notes that studies show possible special education cost-savings of '23 to 86 percent.' Meanwhile, if a child repeats second (or any) grade, the public pays an additional year of per-pupil funding, and it also delays their entry into the workforce. As such, pre-K's ability to lower grade retention and keep students on track for college and career is a particularly efficient return on early education investments. Finally, early education programs like Head Start are a boon for working families because they help parents get back to work sooner after having a child. Most encouraging of all, Head Start appears to create some long-term positive effects. In 2022, researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Texas A&M found that the children of Head Start participants garnered benefits like higher high school graduation and college attainment rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduced rates of interaction with the criminal justice system. For instance, critics often point to the federal Head Start Impact Study, which gathered data on programs in the early 2000s. It largely found that Head Start had positive initial effects on children's development, but that these effects 'faded out' as kids worked their way into the K–12 education system. But problems with the study's data prompted a field reassessment of its findings in the 2010s, with most researchers concluding that it meaningfully underestimated Head Start's benefits to children. This begs some critical questions about how the public should measure 'success' for Head Start. Begin here: nearly every study of nearly every early education investment shows that these programs are effective at getting kids ready for K–12 schooling. Put simply, pre-K appears to be good at getting kids 'pre'-pared for K(indergarten). Related The trouble is, political rhetoric about early education investments has sometimes presented them as an invulnerable 'inoculation' against all challenges that children may face later in life. This is the wrong way to think about whether early education investments 'work,' because it sets an impossible bar for success. Head Start — or pre-K programs more generally — cannot wholly blunt poverty, poor health or the impacts of low-quality K–12 classrooms. Indeed, even less rosy findings, like those in a recent study of Tennessee's public pre-K program, indicate a positive path forward for public early education investments. Initial studies of the program garnered headlines. While Tennessee pre-K attendees were generally more ready for kindergarten than their peers who did not attend the program, pre-K attendees scored worse on a range of metrics by the end of elementary school. This is concerning! But a more recent analysis of Tennessee's data found that pre-K's benefits were 'most likely to persist until 3rd grade among those students who went on to attend high quality schooling environments and were taught by highly effective teachers.' That is, Tennessee's pre-K programs succeeded at preparing children for kindergarten, and kids who went from those programs into higher-quality elementary classrooms continued to do better. In other words, if Head Start and other pre-K programs are measured as a one-time public investment that will solve all systemic inequities in American schools and society, they will inevitably appear to fail. But if they are measured against their ability to prepare children for elementary schools, it is clear that they are a success. Furthermore, this fairer definition of Head Start's effectiveness would allow policymakers to focus their attention on the necessary work of investing and improving K–12 schools so that they bolster children and families beyond the early years.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
After decimal error cost Florida $5M in COVID vendor deal, company agrees to repay state
A South Florida health care company that was overpaid millions by the state for a COVID-related contract is going to pay the state back. Trinity Health Care Services, which was contracted by the state to register people for COVID-19 vaccinations, recently settled a lawsuit filed against it by the Florida Division of Emergency Management, court records show. Trinity agreed to pay the agency $5,624,659.43 over the next several years. But it's going to do so in installments. According to the lawsuit, filed in Leon County and settled April 9, FDEM entered into a contract with Trinity for $50,578.50 in 2021, but the agency instead paid the company $5,057,850 to Trinity – an overage of five million bucks. At the time the contract was signed, the CEO was Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, now a member of Congress and the subject of an unrelated House ethics complaint. Edwin Cherfilus, who was the CEO of Trinity at the time of the lawsuit and is now the vice president of operations, is the congresswoman's brother. Requests for comment for both the state and Trinity are pending with spokespeople. As previously reported, the state argued that Trinity, as a contractor, "was required to return any overpayments of invoices for work not actually performed and money not actually owed." According to the invoices attached to the lawsuit, many were submitted and paid in 2021. The letter to Trinity demanding repayment, however, was dated June 13, 2024. Trinity denied the allegations and the two parties agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the cost of future litigation. The company agreed to pay: $25,000 on or before April 18, 2025. $25,000 on or before May 8, 2025. $92,910.99 on or before Jan. 2, 2026. $92,910.99 on or before the first day of each quarter thereafter for 15 years until the settlement amount is paid in full. More: Florida files COVID-19 related suit after accidentally overpaying company $5 million Ana Goñi-Lessan, based in Tallahassee, is State Watchdog Reporter for USA TODAY - Florida. She can be reached at AGoniLessan@ This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: State settles after $5M overpayment on $50K COVID contract
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Bringing students back — chronic absenteeism is a crisis Utah can't ignore
In Utah's classrooms — from St. George to Cache Valley — an invisible crisis has taken root: students aren't showing up to school. In the wake of the pandemic, chronic absenteeism has spiked to unprecedented levels across the state and the nation. The result isn't just missed instruction — it's missed opportunities, missed futures and missed connections to our communities. Before COVID-19, Utah had one of the lowest chronic absenteeism rates in the country. But since 2020, those numbers have nearly doubled in many districts, including in Cache County, where teachers and administrators are raising alarms about students slipping through the cracks. Statewide, roughly 1 in 5 students now meets the threshold for chronic absenteeism — defined as missing 10% or more of the school year. That's about 18 full days of instruction. This isn't a temporary dip in engagement. It's a structural issue that threatens long-term educational success, workforce readiness and, perhaps most importantly, civic health. The causes are complex but painfully familiar. Mental health struggles have increased significantly among Utah's youth. Anxiety, depression and burnout, exacerbated by academic disruption and social isolation, are keeping students home. Economic pressures weigh heavily on many families. In parts of Cache County and rural Utah, limited access to transportation or reliable childcare can turn everyday logistics into barriers to attendance. Academic disengagement, especially after the shift to remote learning, has made it harder for some students to reconnect with school. Once behind, many simply stop showing up. A cultural shift in how some families view the importance of in-person schooling has emerged. The rhythm and routine of school have been disrupted, and many communities haven't fully restored them. These are not problems schools can fix on their own. This is a community problem, and it requires a community solution. We often talk about education in terms of curriculum, testing and funding, but none of it matters if students aren't in class. Chronic absenteeism is one of the clearest predictors of academic decline, high school dropout and long-term economic struggle. It also puts strain on teachers, complicates classroom management and disrupts learning for students who do attend. In rural counties like Cache, where every student counts and community cohesion is strong, absenteeism doesn't just affect schools — it weakens our shared future. And the stakes are especially high in Utah, where we pride ourselves on strong families, tight-knit communities and a forward-looking vision for our children. This is not a challenge that can be solved by state policy alone. We need local, community-based responses, starting now. Faith groups, nonprofits and local employers can partner with schools to offer transportation help, mentorship and family support. Parents and neighbors can play a more active role in encouraging daily attendance and reinforcing the value of education. Local officials can prioritize funding for after-school programs, student wellness and attendance outreach teams. Community leaders and media outlets can help reframe the conversation: this is not about punishment — it's about connection, belonging and showing students and parents they matter. Let's make school a place where students want to be — not just for grades, but for growth, purpose and community. Hope begins at home. Here in Utah, we don't wait for Washington to solve our problems. We come together, roll up our sleeves and take care of our own. Tackling absenteeism will require that same spirit, especially in close-knit places like Cache County, where community strength is one of our greatest assets. We can't afford to let this become the new normal. It's time to bring our students back — one day, one connection and one conversation at a time.
