Latest news with #PublicReadinessandEmergencyPreparednessAct
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Grace Schera's family wants jury to decide hospital caused her death, not COVID-19. What to know about the case.
The circumstances of the death of a young Wisconsin woman, whose story has been visible on billboards in Outagamie County for years, went on trial June 2. Grace Schara died at age 19 in October 2021, after being admitted to Ascension NE Wisconsin-St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton for symptoms of COVID-19. Her father filed a wrongful death lawsuit a year and a half later. Here's what to know about the case and trial. More: COVID, conspiracy theories and a billboard campaign: Grace Schara's hospital death finally sees trial Grace Schara was the youngest of three children. She had Down syndrome, and loved drawing, singing, dancing and Elvis Presley. Grace was 19 when she died Oct. 13, 2021, seven days after being admitted to Ascension NE Wisconsin-St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton for symptoms of COVID-19. She died from COVID-19 complications, according to the hospital. Her parents believe she died as a result of actions taken by hospital staff, and have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court. Grace's father, Scott Schara, leased multiple billboards along Interstate 41 and other highways in Outagamie and surrounding counties. The messages and photos change, but some include: 'Have innocent lives been stolen by medical malpractice or murder?' 'Was Grace given a lethal combination of meds at St. Elizabeth's hospital? Intentional? Who's next?' Now self-proclaimed 'medical murder' expert, Schara believes the government and medical community have worked together to hasten the deaths of thousands of people, particularly the disabled and elderly. He's spread these views on the billboards and a related website, Their lawsuit is a wrongful death claim. Their lawsuit includes claims of medical negligence, violation of informed consent and battery. In the family's lawsuit, they say Grace was given precedex, lorazepam and morphine without their knowledge or consent, and that it was this trio of drugs — not complications from COVID-19 — that caused Grace's body to go into respiratory distress. And, their lawsuit claims, it wasn't until Grace was in respiratory distress that the family learned a "do not resuscitate' order had been placed on her chart — which directs medical staff not to perform any life-saving measures if a patient experiences cardiac or respiratory arrest. Their lawsuit names defendants Ascension Health, doctor Gavin Shokar and nurse Hollee McInnis as defendants. Other doctors, nurses and medical professionals were dismissed from the lawsuit. The hospital argues that injuries or damages sustained by the Schara family may be the result of their own negligence or decision-making, and that Grace's condition may have been the result of a pre-existing condition or the result of a natural disease progression beyond the control of the hospital staff. The hospital also argues the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act provided immunity from liability for certain individuals and entities during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to court documents. Ascension spokesperson Victoria Schmidt said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that while the hospital is unable to comment on ongoing legal matters, 'we have full confidence in the legal proceedings.' Jury selection began Monday, June 2. Opening arguments took place Tuesday, June 3. Outagamie County Circuit Court Judge Mark McGinnis reserved four weeks for the trial. During the trial, up to 22 witnesses may testify. Eight of those people are experts on various topics, McGinnis said at jury selection Monday. Others testifying will include Grace's parents, Scott and Cindy Schara, and defendants Dr. Gavin Shokar, Grace's doctor, and Hollee McInnis, a nurse. The trial will be live-streamed by Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the nation's health secretary. The public can attend in-person at Outagamie County Courthouse, but may have to sit in an overflow room because of limited capacity. The case is the first to challenge COVID-19 as the cause of death listed on a death certificate. Family and supporters view it as a chance to hold the medical profession responsible for hospital deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. The case could also set a precedent that bypasses the state's medical-malpractice cap. A wrongful death case can apply to any cause of death, but if that death is due to medical care, there are limitations on who can file such a case and the amount of damages that can be paid out. Attaching the medical battery claim to the lawsuit is an attempt 'to kick the case outside the realm of medical malpractice limitations," said Jerome Hierseman, with Milwaukee-based End, Hierseman & Crain, a medical malpractice for the family believe it is also the first medical battery claim attached to a wrongful death lawsuit to be tried in Wisconsin in the past 50 years. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Grace Schara trial: What to know about disputed COVID-19 death
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
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
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.
