Lawsuit Alleges Federal Injury Compensation Program Violates Constitutional Rights of Those Harmed by COVID Shots

React19, a U.S. nonprofit organization representing people who have been injured by COVID-19 shots, along with eight individuals who suffered COVID shot adverse reactions, have filed suit in a Louisiana federal district court against the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). The lawsuit alleges that the COVID shot injury compensation program violates the fifth and the seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.^{1 2}

React19 provides information and financial and emotional support to COVID-19 vaccine injury victims. The nonprofit organization founded in 2021 by adult COVID vaccine-injured medical professionals and clinical trial participants offers programs and services to some 36,000 U.S. citizens and thousands more internationally.³

COVID Shot Injury Claims Are Covered by Special Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program

COVID shot injury claims, like all other vaccines authorized for distribution to the public through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), fall under the federal Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).  As EUA vaccines, the COVID shots are considered a covered medical “countermeasure” as defined by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) passed by Congress in 2005.⁴

The CICP is considered the payor of last resort and, if a claimant receives compensation, it will  only cover unreimbursed medical expenses, a limited amount for lost wages and survivor death benefits.⁵ The CICP is an administrative process whereby a claimant is not allowed an attorney, is not entitled to a hearing, and may not appeal the decision. Instead, unidentified government officials render their decisions as to whether a claimant in entitled to compensation based on the limited allowable documents submitted on the record.⁶ The decision is final and not reviewable by any court.⁷

The CICP compensation program differs from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) established under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 that applies to covered vaccines and injuries listed on a Vaccine Injury Table.⁸ The CICP was established in 2010 in response to people injured by certain covered medical countermeasures, including vaccines, that are used  during government declared public health emergencies.⁹

The CICP Has Limited Experience Handling Vaccine Injury Complaints

Prior to COVID, the CICP only handled 500 claims for compensation for adverse reactions to covered medical countermeasures and 90 percent of those claims were denied. Since COVID, the CICP has received more than 12,000 claims, of which only 1,000 have been adjudicated by Oct. 1, 2023.¹⁰ Ninety-seven percent of the claims that have been decided were denied.

As of November 2023, only four people who have tried to obtain a COVID shot injury award have received federal compensation and that was limited to approximately $2,148 each.¹¹ By comparison, the VICP has paid out approximately $5 billion to vaccine injury plaintiff injured by CDC recommended vaccines since 1988.¹²

Aaron Siri, attorney for the COVID shot plaintiffs alleges that s the CICP program, “is the equivalent of a black hole.”¹³ A government spokesperson for the CICP has blamed the backlog of claims on Congress for not fully funding the program.¹⁴

Of the eight plaintiffs in the Louisiana federal court lawsuit, one had a claim denied, three were unaware of the CICP and missed the one-year window to file a claim, and four filed claims to which the CICP confirmed that there is, “no timeline” to address the claims.¹⁵

The lawsuit Complaint alleges that the CICP is the “epitome of a kangaroo court or a star chamber proceeding that ignores recognized standards of law and justice, is grossly unfair, and comes to a predetermined conclusion.”¹⁶

Lives Destroyed by COVID Shots

Cody Flint, one of the plaintiff’s in the case, summarized his experience after taking a COVID shot…

When I took my first and only dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in February 2021, I was a perfectly healthy 33-year-old dad and husband with a bright future, a young family, financial stability, and my dream job of 15 years. Within a few short hours of receiving that shot, my life and family’s future was altered in ways we couldn’t have imagined at the time. Now, my family is flat broke, swamped in debt, and has no real path forward.¹⁷

Plaintiff Michelle Zimmerman, PhD explained that after the COVID shots…

I have been taken out of the career I loved as a frontline worker and found purpose in. I have lost public speaking engagements for having to turn them down… I went from a book author published in five languages and researcher to 2nd-grade reading level and 1st percentile in cognitive testing, needing speech therapy, vestibular therapy, and vision therapy for over two years and still a long way to go.¹⁸

The Complaint sets forth:

Despite their grievous injuries and the catastrophic effects on their lives, the only relief afforded to these Americans who “did the right thing” and got a COVID-19 vaccine is potential limited compensation under a federal program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (“CICP”).¹⁹

Allegations  that the CICP Violates the U.S. Constitution

Plaintiffs allege that by prohibiting judicial relief other than in very limited situations, the CICP violates the fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that no person shall, “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” The CICP does not ensure that plaintiffs have due process of the law as they are not able to present their case in a formal hearing, review the government’s evidence, or question the government’s witnesses. The 97% denial rate for COVID shot injury claims is evidence that the claims are unfairly dismissed. In other words, the CICP is not a sufficient substitute for state courts in the adjudication of injuries that stem from covered countermeasures, such as the COVID shots.²⁰

The Complaint argues that the CICP violates the seventh Amendment of the Constitution by denying plaintiffs the right to a jury trial.

Plaintiffs ask that the portions of the PREP Act “which provide immunity to liability and pertain to the CICP” be declared unconstitutional and prevent the enforcement of these portions of the PREP Act until such time as plaintiffs receive adequate constitutional protections.²¹

A vaccine injury attorney, David Carney, said about this case:

This is the first domino to fall. We’re going to start to see a windfall.²²

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is searching for as many as eight new attorneys to represent the government in the onslaught of COVID shot injury claims.²³

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.