‘Dad said no,’ six-year-old protested to school clinic worker
By Guy Page
A U.S. law governing vaccination in a public emergency protects a Windham school district from lawsuit even though it administered a Covid-19 vaccination to a student without parental permission – and even when the student himself said, ‘Dad said no.’
That’s the upshot of a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court. The court’s decision could send the question of the scope of parental rights in child vaccination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling, Dario Politella and Shujen Politella v. Windham Southeast School District, concluded Vermont court action resulting from a November, 2021 incident (as reported by Vermont Daily Chronicle) in which a first-grade student at the Academy School in Brattleboro was injected with the Pfizer BioNTech single-dose drug for Covid-19 at a school clinic against the expressed will of his parents.
Principal Mark Speno admitted in a letter to parents a day later that “in the course of vaccinating students at this clinic, a mistake was made. A student whose parents did not consent to vaccination was mistaken for a student whose parents did consent. We are deeply sorry that this mistake happened, and have worked internally to improve our screening procedures.”
Sorry and we’ll try harder didn’t cut it with Dario and Shujen Politella, the parents of the child. They filed suit. A lower court dismissed the complaint for “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the July 26 ruling said in its review of the facts of the case.
The Vermont Supreme Court summarized its ruling with this sentence: “We conclude that defendants are immune from suit under the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).”
The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148. It addresses liability immunity and creates a compensation program. Critics of Covid-19 vaccine mandates say the law offers too much protection for big Pharma and for government agencies and staffers administering vaccine programs during public health emergencies.
According to the federal Department of Health and Human Services website, “The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to issue a PREP Act declaration. The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:
- of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency, and
- to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures
The Academy School employees would seem to fall under the category of “administration and use” when they vaccinated L.P. over his and his parents’ objections.
According to their lawsuit, the Politellas lived in Brattleboro with their son, L.P., who was six years old in 2021. L.P. attended Academy School in the Windham Southeast School District.
The couple described what happened this way (printed virtually verbatim from lawsuit):
The Vermont Department of Health and the school district entered into an agreement to host a COVID-19 vaccination clinic at Academy School in November 2021. Students needed parental consent to be vaccinated. The Politellas did not consent to have L.P. vaccinated.
A few days before the clinic, L.P.’s father dropped off L.P. at school and spoke with Academy School’s assistant principal. He reiterated to the assistant principal that they did not consent to have L.P. vaccinated. The assistant principal said that he understood and stated that L.P. could not be vaccinated without plaintiffs’ consent. In the same interaction, the assistant principal said that the school had not received as many vaccine registrations as he would have liked.
Despite the above, L.P. was vaccinated on the day of the clinic. An unidentified worker removed L.P. from class and applied a handwritten label to L.P.’s shirt that read, “L.K.” and displayed “L.K’s” date of birth. L.K. was a five-year-old student at Academy School who was not in L.P.’s class. L.K. had already been vaccinated the same day. L.P. “verbally protested,” saying, “Dad said no.”
Nonetheless, clinic workers gave L.P. a stuffed animal to distract him, told L.P. that he was “a brave little boy,” and administered one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID19 vaccine.
A clinic worker filled out a vaccine card with “L.K.’s” name, the date of administration, the vaccine lot number, and the type of vaccine dose and put the card in L.P.’s backpack. At some point, the clinic workers and school officials realized the mistake.
The Supreme Court July 26 ruling further states that the lower court “concluded that the PREP Act provided immunity for State and school defendants involved in administering the vaccine to L.P.” The lower court allowed the Politallas to amend their complaint to a violation of the Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution, but ruled again that the PREP Act pre-empts the Vermont Constitution, that it had no jurisdiction over pre-emption, and therefore dismissed the case.
Explaining its ruling, the Supreme Court said that “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case.” However, the state’s high court did not lay claim to ruling on the full extent of PREP Act pre-emption: “Plaintiffs’ arguments about preemption are misplaced, and therefore we need not decide today the extent of the PREP Act’s preemptive effect.”
That statement by the Vermont Supreme Court may open the door to a case before the ultimate arbiter of federal law: the U.S. Supreme Court.