North Carolina Supreme Court Allows Lawsuit Over Alleged Unauthorized COVID-19 Vaccination of Teen
The highest court in North Carolina has delivered a significant ruling, allowing a mother and son to proceed with their lawsuit against a public school system and a medical organization. The case revolves around allegations that the teenage son was given a COVID-19 vaccine without his or his mother’s consent at a school-based clinic during the height of the pandemic.
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision overturns previous rulings by a lower court and the state Court of Appeals, which had sided with the school system and medical group, citing a federal health emergency law as a shield against legal action. The federal law in question, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), was enacted to provide broad immunity to individuals and organizations involved in administering countermeasures during a declared public health emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit was filed by Emily Happel and her son, Tanner Smith, following an incident in August 2021. According to the lawsuit, Tanner, then 14 years old, went to a testing and vaccination clinic set up at his high school in Guilford County. He was seeking a COVID-19 test after several members of his football team had tested positive for the virus. However, the lawsuit alleges that Tanner was not aware that the clinic was also administering COVID-19 vaccines.
Upon arriving at the clinic, Tanner reportedly informed the staff that he did not want to receive a vaccine and that he did not have a signed parental consent form, which would typically be required for a minor to receive medical treatment. Despite this, Happel and Smith claim that clinic staff attempted to contact Tanner’s mother. When they were unable to reach her, a worker allegedly instructed a colleague to administer the vaccine to Tanner anyway.
Happel and Smith subsequently filed their lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, a group of physicians that assisted in operating the school clinic. The lawsuit includes accusations of battery, which is defined as intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without their consent. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the actions of the school system and medical society violated Tanner’s and his mother’s constitutional rights.
The lower courts, relying on the PREP Act, had dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that the federal law provided immunity to the school district and the physicians group from liability. The PREP Act was invoked in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with an emergency declaration issued in March 2020. This declaration activated the law’s immunity provisions, designed to protect those involved in developing, manufacturing, distributing, and administering countermeasures against the virus.
However, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, disagreed with the lower courts’ interpretation of the PREP Act. Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing for the majority, stated that the federal law did not prevent Happel and Smith from pursuing their lawsuit based on allegations that their rights under the state constitution had been violated.
Chief Justice Newby emphasized the fundamental rights of parents to control their child’s upbringing and the right of a competent individual to refuse unwanted medical treatment. He argued that the PREP Act’s immunity provisions primarily cover tort injuries, which involve seeking compensation for damages caused by negligent or wrongful actions. However, he maintained that constitutional violations are distinct from tort injuries and therefore, the PREP Act does not bar the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
The court’s conservative justices largely supported Chief Justice Newby’s opinion. Two justices even went further, suggesting that the immunity provided by the PREP Act should be interpreted more narrowly.
Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a liberal justice on the court, dissented from the majority opinion. She argued that state constitutional claims should be preempted by the federal law. Justice Riggs criticized the majority’s interpretation of the constitution, calling it "fundamentally unsound." She argued that the majority’s decision "explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity" intended by the PREP Act.
The implications of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling are significant. It clarifies the scope of the PREP Act’s immunity provisions in the context of state constitutional claims. While the federal law provides broad protection against liability for those involved in administering countermeasures during a public health emergency, the court has made it clear that this protection does not extend to violations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution.
The decision allows Happel and Smith to proceed with their lawsuit, seeking to hold the school system and medical society accountable for allegedly vaccinating Tanner without his or his mother’s consent. The case raises important questions about parental rights, individual autonomy, and the balance between public health measures and constitutional protections during a public health crisis.
