Latest news with #Happel
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Carolina family can sue over COVID-19 vaccine administered without consent, court rules
A North Carolina mother and her son can sue a public school system and a doctors' group for allegedly giving the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled. The ruling handed down Friday reverses a lower-court decision that a federal health emergency law prevented Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit. Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had ruled against the two, who sought litigation after Smith received an unwanted vaccine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. Smith was vaccinated in August 2021 at age 14 despite his opposition at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family's lawsuit. Greene Calls For Yanking Fda Approval Of Covid-19 Vaccines: 'Causing Permanent Harm And Deaths' The teenager went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after several cases among his school's football team, the lawsuit says. He did not anticipate that the clinic would also be administering vaccines. He told staff at the clinic that he did not want a vaccination, and he did not have a signed parental consent form to receive one. Read On The Fox News App But when the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed a colleague to "give it to him anyway," Happel and Smith claim. Happel and Smith filed the lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic. The mother and son made accusations of battery and alleged that their constitutional rights were violated. Last year, a panel of the intermediate-level appeals court ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the physicians' group from liability. The law places broad protections and immunity on various people and organizations who perform "countermeasures" during a public health emergency. An emergency declaration in response to COVID-19 was made in March 2020, activating the federal law's immunity provisions, the state's high court noted on Friday. Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the prevailing opinion that the law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated. He said a parent has the right to control their child's upbringing and the "right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment." Newby wrote that the law's plain text prompted a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions. "Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs' constitutional claims," he said. A Look Back At The Early Days Of Coronavirus Spread The court's conservative justices backed Newby's opinion, including two who wrote a separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further. Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a liberal who wrote a dissenting opinion, said that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law and criticized the court's majority for a "fundamentally unsound" interpretation of the constitution. "Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity," Riggs said. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: North Carolina family can sue over COVID-19 vaccine administered without consent, court rules
Fox News
24-03-2025
- Health
- Fox News
North Carolina family can sue over COVID-19 vaccine administered without consent, court rules
A North Carolina mother and her son can sue a public school system and a doctors' group for allegedly giving the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled. The ruling handed down Friday reverses a lower-court decision that a federal health emergency law prevented Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit. Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had ruled against the two, who sought litigation after Smith received an unwanted vaccine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. Smith was vaccinated in August 2021 at age 14 despite his opposition at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family's lawsuit. The teenager went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after several cases among his school's football team, the lawsuit says. He did not anticipate that the clinic would also be administering vaccines. He told staff at the clinic that he did not want a vaccination, and he did not have a signed parental consent form to receive one. But when the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed a colleague to "give it to him anyway," Happel and Smith claim. Happel and Smith filed the lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic. The mother and son made accusations of battery and alleged that their constitutional rights were violated. Last year, a panel of the intermediate-level appeals court ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the physicians' group from liability. The law places broad protections and immunity on various people and organizations who perform "countermeasures" during a public health emergency. An emergency declaration in response to COVID-19 was made in March 2020, activating the federal law's immunity provisions, the state's high court noted on Friday. Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the prevailing opinion that the law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated. He said a parent has the right to control their child's upbringing and the "right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment." Newby wrote that the law's plain text prompted a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions. "Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs' constitutional claims," he said. The court's conservative justices backed Newby's opinion, including two who wrote a separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further. Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a liberal who wrote a dissenting opinion, said that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law and criticized the court's majority for a "fundamentally unsound" interpretation of the constitution. "Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity," Riggs said.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Carolina justices decide family can sue over unwanted COVID-19 shot
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina mother and son can sue a public school system and a doctors' group on allegations they gave the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday, reversing a lower-court decision that declared a federal health emergency law blocked the litigation. A trial judge and later the state Court of Appeals had ruled against Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith, who at age 14 received the vaccination in August 2021 despite his protests at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family's lawsuit. Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after a cluster of cases occurred among his school's football team. He did not expect the clinic would be providing vaccines as well, according to the litigation. Smith told workers he didn't want a vaccination, and he lacked a signed parental consent form to get one. When the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed another to 'give it to him anyway," Happel and Smith allege in legal briefs. Happel and Smith sued the Guilford County Board of Education and an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic, alleging claims of battery and that their constitutional rights were violated. A panel of the intermediate-level appeals court last year ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the Old North State Medical Society from liability. The law places broad protections and immunity on an array of individuals and organizations who perform 'countermeasures' during a public health emergency. A COVID-19 emergency declaration in March 2020 activated the law's immunity provisions, Friday's decision said. Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing Friday's prevailing opinion, said that the federal law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated. In particular, he wrote, there is the right for a parent to control their child's upbringing and the 'right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment.' The federal law's plain text led a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, Newby wrote, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions. 'Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs' constitutional claims,' he added while sending the case back presumably for a trial on the allegations. The court's five Republican justices backed Newby's opinion, including two who wrote a short separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further. Associate Justice Allison Riggs, writing a dissenting opinion backed by the other Democratic justice on the court, said that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law. Riggs criticized the majority for 'fundamentally unsound' constitutional analyses. 'Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity,' Riggs said.
Associated Press
21-03-2025
- Health
- Associated Press
North Carolina justices decide family can sue over unwanted COVID-19 shot
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina mother and son can sue a public school system and a doctors' group on allegations they gave the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday, reversing a lower-court decision that declared a federal health emergency law blocked the litigation. A trial judge and later the state Court of Appeals had ruled against Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith, who at age 14 received the vaccination in August 2021 despite his protests at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family's lawsuit. Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after a cluster of cases occurred among his school's football team. He did not expect the clinic would be providing vaccines as well, according to the litigation. Smith told workers he didn't want a vaccination, and he lacked a signed parental consent form to get one. When the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed another to 'give it to him anyway,' Happel and Smith allege in legal briefs. Happel and Smith sued the Guilford County Board of Education and an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic, alleging claims of battery and that their constitutional rights were violated. A panel of the intermediate-level appeals court last year ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the Old North State Medical Society from liability. The law places broad protections and immunity on an array of individuals and organizations who perform 'countermeasures' during a public health emergency. A COVID-19 emergency declaration in March 2020 activated the law's immunity provisions, Friday's decision said. Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing Friday's prevailing opinion, said that the federal law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated. In particular, he wrote, there is the right for a parent to control their child's upbringing and the 'right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment.' The federal law's plain text led a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, Newby wrote, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions. 'Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs' constitutional claims,' he added while sending the case back presumably for a trial on the allegations. The court's five Republican justices backed Newby's opinion, including two who wrote a short separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further. Associate Justice Allison Riggs, writing a dissenting opinion backed by the other Democratic justice on the court, said that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law. Riggs criticized the majority for 'fundamentally unsound' constitutional analyses. 'Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity,' Riggs said.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientists study fish behavior during dyeing of the Chicago River for St. Patrick's Day
Every year as part of the city's St. Patrick's Day celebrations, thousands of onlookers clad in green cheer on a boat crew sprinkling orange powder into the Chicago River to turn it a festive shade. But with the federal government considering sweeping rollbacks to environmental protections, this Saturday many may wonder: How will the bright green water affect the underwater denizens? Last year, an extensive scientific study of fish behavior in the Chicago River system led by researchers from the Shedd Aquarium, Purdue University and the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant offered a clue. In mid-March, as researchers studied aquatic activity they found a handful of the over 80 fish they were tracking were in the main branch downtown. On the day of the 2024 St. Patrick's parade, none of the tagged fish rushed to find shelter from their suddenly green surroundings. '(It) was the first time that we could actually track how individuals behave when the river is dyed green,' said Austin Happel, a research biologist at the Shedd. 'We didn't see changes in what they were doing that day, or even the next couple of days afterward, so it doesn't seem to be causing them to be agitated.' Since June 2023, the scientists have been following largemouth bass, common carp, bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappies, walleyes and green sunfish, among others, with tags that ping every minute or so. These signals are picked up by acoustic receivers throughout the 'Wild Mile' in the North Branch, Bubbly Creek in the South Branch and by the Riverwalk downtown, letting the scientists know how the fish respond to habitat restoration initiatives, flooding and sewage overflows, as well as seasonal changes. St. Patrick's Day celebrations in 2024 gave scientists a peek into the tradition's impact on aquatic life, a matter that has concerned environmentalists since its origins in 1962. That first year, an oil-based Air Force dye kept the water green for nearly a month, which caused an outcry. A vegetable dye has been used ever since. While its ingredients are not public knowledge, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has previously said the dye has no toxic effect. Green is not the only color the river's main branch has been tinted: It was turned blue in 2016 to celebrate the World Series champion Cubs on the day of the team's victory parade and celebration. Happel contrasted the unbothered behavior of some of the study's aquatic participants during the river dispersal of dye last year to another event that made the fish they were tracking in Bubbly Creek swim for cover. Environment | 'You feel like you're king for a day:' How a family dyes the Chicago River green for St. Patrick's Day Environment | From homebodies to prolific swimmers, researchers track Chicago River fish to find out where they are going and why Environment | Court finds Trump Tower violated environmental laws and endangered fish in the Chicago River When the city of Chicago experiences very heavy rainfall, combined rain and untreated wastewater may overflow from sewage pipes and into local waterways. One such overflow happened during massive rains in early July 2023, a month into the study, and caused fish to swim to other areas where sewage had not depleted oxygen levels. If they are unable to leave the presence of a contaminant, the toxins can lead to a fish kill, or sudden death in large numbers in a specific area over a short period of time. 'A lot of our fish were moving long distances as if they were looking for a place to hide,' Happel said. 'So we can contrast those. With the river dyeing, we have yet to see a fish kill associated.' He hopes some of their tagged subjects will be in the river downtown for the Saturday celebration so the researchers can continue monitoring any possible effects of the dye on aquatic life. It would be ideal if it were the same five fish that were there last time, Happel said, because each fish, like humans, has their own personality and behavioral quirks. But it's unlikely since the scientists can't control where the animals decide to spend their time. 'At least, with the river dyeing, it's always the same event,' he said. The same kind and amount of dye offers a baseline for scientists to understand the fish's response. 'It's harder with the sewage when, each time, it's a different amount.' Even though vegetable dye may not have a negative impact underwater, environmentalists worry that putting a foreign substance in the river to tint it an unnatural color sends the wrong message about stewardship. Advocates say the Chicago River is healthier now than it has been in the past 150 years. It is home to all kinds of animals, including migratory birds, beavers and turtles, as well as 80 species of fish — up from fewer than 10 in the 1970s. The system has become a natural resource for local businesses and recreation. Environmental groups question whether dyeing is appropriate for a waterway that, despite a historical reputation of pollution, has come such a long way. Several advocacy nonprofits, including the Sierra Club Illinois Chapter, Friends of the Chicago River and Openlands, have spoken out against the tradition, arguing that the city must rethink how it interacts with the river as a signal to residents. For instance, in 2023, what began as a joke on social media became a trend that had people dumping Mountain Dew soda in the river to mess with out-of-towners and convince them it was how Chicago dyes the water. Rogue dyers have been a problem, too, with a few cases of unsanctioned dumping of colorants into the North Branch of the river despite the presence of conservation police patrols. 'If you see one person, say, throw a piece of trash down, you're more likely to throw a piece of trash down — or you're more likely to care less,' Happel said. 'While we like to say that the river has bigger issues to tackle before St. Paddy's Day, the general image of dumping stuff … is not the best image of how to care for the environment.' adperez@
