slide
menu
slide
News: COVID Vaccine Reaction Not in Injury Compensation Program
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is a no-fault, no-cost resolution to vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to those found to be physically injured by certain vaccines. The list includes vaccines such as the seasonal influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccines, polio, measles, and mumps. However, the NVICP does not include the COVID vaccine.

The COVID vaccine is listed on the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). This list includes vaccines that are recommended to prevent or treat a declared pandemic, epidemic, or security threat. Ebola, SARS, plague, anthrax, and smallpox are included in CICP. "overall, it sounds like a tough program to prevail in, as only 29 of 494 claims have been compensated in the last 10 years," says Dave. Although there is a plan to add the COVID vaccine to the NVICP, the process is federal and lengthy. 

Dr. Meissner's "viewpoint" article dives into the COVID vaccine and how/why it is not included in the NVICP. The article references a self-help guide for people to make PREP (Countermeasures) Act claims. 

Three facts to know about the COVID vaccine and the PREP Act:
  1. Unlike the vaccine program, PREP Act filings do not reimburse attorney’s fees (but Christensen & Jensen would evaluate such a filing if the client was willing to pay an hourly rate.)
  2. PREP Act filings have been largely unsuccessful. According to Meissner, only 494 PREP claims have been filed since 2010 and only 29 were deemed compensable.
  3. PREP filings have a 1-year statute of limitations.  By comparison, the vaccine program provides a 3-year statute for injuries and a 2-year statue for deaths.
Filing for Benefits: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/filing-benefits 
Dr. Meissner's article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776308
 
More news stories:
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer presented during a plenary session of the Utah State Bar’s Spring Convention
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer presented during a plenary session of the Utah State Bar’s Spring Convention on March 17, 2022. She was joined in her presentation by Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen, University of Utah Professor Anna Carpenter, prominent Utah solo practitioner Virginia Sudbury, and moderator Michelle Oldroyd. The topic was “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution and the Rule of Law in Times of Change.” Sarah was honored to speak alongside such prominent members of Utah’s legal community.
read more...
Christensen & Jensen is a longstanding member of ALFA International
Christensen & Jensen is a longstanding member of ALFA International, a preeminent, global network of law firms and attorneys. Sarah Elizabeth Spencer will be speaking at the ALFA International Product Liability and Complex Torts Seminar on June 2, 2022, in San Diego, California. Sarah will be speaking on the main stage during the “hot topics” presentation. Sarah will be speaking about cutting-edge trends in spoliation of evidence.
read more...
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Anna P. Christiansen won a motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged sale of contaminated diesel fuel
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Anna P. Christiansen won a motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged sale of contaminated diesel fuel by their client’s gas station. Sarah and Anna successfully demonstrated why their client was not liable for the plaintiff’s negligence or breach of contract claims, arguing there was no evidence their client sold contaminated fuel. The court agreed. The court found that the claims were factually and legally unsupported and dismissed them in total.
read more...
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Zachary C. Meyers won a motion for summary judgment in a product liability case
Sarah Elizabeth Spencer and Zachary C. Meyers won a motion for summary judgment in a product liability case involving serious personal injuries arising from an electric scooter accident. The motion involved application of Colorado’s innocent seller statute. Sarah and Zach successfully demonstrated to the court why Colorado law governed the plaintiff’s claims. The court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the scooter manufacturer on all of the plaintiff’s claims.
read more...
0.09