More vaccine litigation

9 February 2017 by

swine_flu_vaccine313John (A Minor: Vaccine Damage Payments scheme), Re [2017] EWCA Civ – read judgment

As commentators to my previous post on immunisation have pointed out, vaccinations are not cost-free. But the benefit of eliminating pathogens through herd immunity is generally agreed to outweigh the occasional risk to individuals. Acknowledging that there are such risks,  the government has run a modern compensation system since 1979 for people who are “severely disabled” as a result of vaccination (now the 2012 Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme). The initial scheme was put in place in response to side effects of the whooping cough vaccine.

The question before the Court of Appeal in the present case was whether the determination of the severity of a person’s disablement could take account of prognosis. If an individual has been assessed as having a lifelong condition, is the state obliged to compensate them for future disabilities?

Yes, said the Court of Appeal: this is not speculation, our legal system is used to it. It is the “very stuff” of personal injury litigation.

Background facts

“John” (not his real name) was given the anti-swine flu vaccination when he was aged 7.  A year later, in 2010, he was diagnosed  as suffering from narcolepsy and cataplexy. Narcolepsy involves proneness to sudden attacks of day-time sleepiness and is associated with sudden loss of muscle tone, cataplexy. This, as the court explained,  can give rise to  a range of symptoms from facial tics to a tendency to collapse to the ground with “temporary profound muscle paralysis.”

The Department of Work and Pensions rejected his claim in 2012, concluding that John’s disablement was not shown to be sufficiently severe to qualify for compensation under the scheme at the time of the assessment. By 2014 his condition had worsened; he was suffering up to five episodes of cataplexy a day and the specialist tribunal (First Instance Tribunal or FTT) decided that he was eligible for compensation. The department paid up in full; however, the claim proceeded because the DWP wanted the question as to eligibility settled. It was argued on their behalf that

the wording of the statutory scheme was such as to require the determination of disablement to be made by reference to an applicant’s condition solely at the time he/she presents at the assessment (by the Department or, on appeal, by the tribunal).

… the scheme, properly interpreted and understood, does not permit a forward – looking assessment which also takes into account likely future disablement.

Writing the judgment for the Court of Appeal, Davis LJ saw “no basis” for this argument, whether the words of the scheme were to be taken at their face value, or interpreted according to the perceived purposes of the legislation.

If an individual is assessed as having a life-long condition (as here) why should that not be taken into account in assessing the extent of the disablement? [Counsel for the DWP] suggested by way of answer that such an approach could give rise to uncertainty and could call for difficult evaluations – he suggested speculations – to be made by a tribunal. But courts and tribunals are well used to assessing loss on a balance of probabilities on present evidence by reference to future prospects.

Speculating future loss is what personal injury lawyers and judges do every day.

The Court of Appeal has now settled the question. Determination for a payout under the scheme does not have to be made by reference to an applicant’s condition solely at the time of assessment.

Related reading:

1 comment;


  1. Helen says:

    Unfortunately this case is the tip of the iceberg and most applications to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme are turned down despite the amount of evidence that has to be gathered to make an application at all. When someone has experienced damage from a vaccine which has changed their life is it right that they should have to go through the humiliating process of proving that they are at least 60% disabled? They are a victim not a criminal. If vaccine damage is apparently so rare then surely it shouldn’t be too much to ask that those who are affected are looked after properly for taking “the hit” for the community? The current Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme is not fit for purpose and should be overhauled to ensure proper compensation for those (actually not so few) who experience life-changing illness after receiving a government recommended vaccine and all vaccines should be included such as the flu vaccine which currently isn’t. For more detail you should contact the Vaccine Victim Support Group which represents hundreds of people and their families who have experienced disability or death after receiving a vaccination. Thank you.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: