- The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled against a mother and son who sued the Guilford County school board and the Old North State Medical Society over the 14-year-old boy's forced COVID-19 vaccination.
- The Appeals Court reached a unanimous decision against the mother and son despite labeling the forced vaccination "egregious."
- Appellate judges determined that a 2005 federal law, the Prep Act, protected both defendants from legal liability.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled against a mother who sued the Guilford County school board and Old North State Medical Society over her teenaged son’s forced COVID-19 vaccination in 2021. Appellate judges agreed that a federal law protected both defendants from legal liability.
The Appeals Court reached a unanimous decision against the mother and son despite labeling the forced vaccination “egregious.”
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 guided appellate judges’ decision.
“Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in determining that the PREP Act … is applicable to this case and provides immunity to both Defendants,” Judge April Wood wrote. “Due to the sweeping breadth of the federal liability immunity provision in the PREP Act, we are constrained to disagree.”
“Bound by the broad scope of immunity provided by the PREP Act, we are constrained to hold it shields Defendants, under the facts of this case, from Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine,” Wood added.
In August 2021, 14-year-old Tanner Smith was a Western Guilford High School football player. His family learned in a letter from the Guilford schools that he might have been affected by a COVID-19 “cluster” involving the team. He would not be allowed to return to practice until getting a COVID test.
Free testing would be provided at Northwest Guilford High School. “The letter indicated ONS Medical Society would conduct the testing and ‘consent for testing is required,’” Wood wrote.
Smith’s stepfather drove him to the testing site and waited outside. The teenager was asked to fill out a form while a clinic worker tried unsuccessfully to contact his mother, Emily Happel. The clinic was providing COVID-19 vaccine shots along with testing.
“After failing to make contact with Tanner’s mother, one of the workers instructed the other worker to ‘give it to him anyway.’ Tanner stated he did not want a vaccine and was only expecting a test, but one of the workers administered a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to him,” Wood wrote.
Happel and Smith filed suit in August 2022. A trial judge dismissed the case in March 2023.
Appellate judges ruled that both the school board and medical society are covered by the federal PREP Act. A declaration from the secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services in March 2020 offered protection related to the COVID-19 vaccine.
“[W]e hold ONS Medical Society is a covered person as a program planner that administered a vaccine clinic, and individually administered vaccines to individuals. … The declaration clearly provides that a program planner may be a private sector employer or community group when it carries out the ‘described activities’ including administration of a covered countermeasure,” Wood wrote.
The same law also applied to the Guilford school board. “We are convinced by the Secretary’s interpretation in the declaration that a covered person under the PREP Act includes a ‘state or local government . . . [that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure.’ We hold this language includes the Board, which provided a facility — Northwest Guilford High School — for the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines,” Wood wrote.
“Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it therefore shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims,” Wood added.
The Appeals Court noted that North Carolina’s General Assembly amended state law in 2021 to require “parental consent before a vaccine granted emergency use authorization may be administered to a minor.”
“Its intent is to prevent the egregious conduct alleged in the case before us, and to safeguard the constitutional rights at issue — Emily’s parental right to the care and control of her child, and Tanner’s right to individual liberty,” Wood wrote. “Notwithstanding, the statute remains explicitly subject to ‘any other provision of law to the contrary’ under the broad provision preempting state law in the PREP Act.”
“The PREP Act provides only one exception for a ‘Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct.’ Because Plaintiffs have not made any such allegations in their complaint, we are constrained to conclude the PREP Act preempts the protections provided” by state law, Wood wrote.
Judges Allegra Collins and Jeff Carpenter joined Wood’s decision.