State’s Highest Court Rules School Medical Staff Cannot Be Held Liable For Vaccinating Minor With COVID-19 Jab Without Parental Consent | WLT Report Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

State’s Highest Court Rules School Medical Staff Cannot Be Held Liable For Vaccinating Minor With COVID-19 Jab Without Parental Consent

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the state’s highest court, upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff cannot be held liable for giving the experimental COVID-19 jab to a minor without obtaining parental consent, The Defender reports.

“On March 4, the court ruled that school medical staff were protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act),” the outlet wrote.

Full text:

ADVERTISEMENT

Maine Court Rules Against Family of Child Vaccinated WITHOUT Parents’ Consent at School

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable.

On March 4, the court ruled that school medical staff were protected under the PREP Act.

Wayne Rohde said the @HHSGov and the @WhiteHouse should “sundown the PREP Act immediately” and “provide guidance to the courts on true informed consent and the preservation of parental rights.”

The Defender reports:

The PREP Act provides a liability shield to “covered persons” — including those who administer COVID-19 or other countermeasures — during a public health emergency. COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the PREP Act because they were rolled out under emergency use authorization (EUA).

In November 2021, J.H., a minor, was given a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine.

In May 2023, J.H.’s parents Siara Harrington and Jeremiah Hogan, who said they did not consent to the vaccination, sued Lincoln Medical Partners, MaineHealth and pediatrician Dr. Andrew Russ.

The lawsuit, originally filed in Lincoln County Superior Court, challenged the PREP Act’s liability shield. The complaint alleged battery, negligence, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with parental rights.

In April 2024, the Maine Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the PREP Act granted immunity to the defendants.

ADVERTISEMENT

J.H.’s parents appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in August 2024, arguing that the PREP Act does not protect practitioners from liability in cases involving nonconsensual medical interventions.

The appeal also referenced the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, which states that people must have the “option to accept or refuse administration” of EUA products.

In its ruling, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the staff who administered the vaccine to J.H. were immune under the PREP Act because they were “covered persons” as defined by the act and because the vaccine was classified as a “covered countermeasure” and was administered during a public health emergency.

The court also ruled that the lawsuit contained no viable claim for willful misconduct — the only exception to the PREP Act’s liability shield — and that the PREP Act supersedes state law, even for battery claims.

“When I say we must continue fighting, this is why,” Dr. Simone Gold commented.

“The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without parental consent cannot be held liable. Parental consent MUST be REQUIRED before any child is given a vaccine. This is a chilling ruling from a court who seemingly believes school workers have ultimate authority over your children. This is wrong,” she continued.

ADVERTISEMENT

Read the full ruling HERE.

The horrifying court ruling follows a similar case in Vermont last year, where the state’s supreme court ruled a family could not sue their child’s school district after the child was given the experimental COVID-19 shot against their wishes.

Six-Year-Old Child Received COVID-19 Shot Without Parental Consent, State Supreme Court Rules Family Cannot Sue School District

Read the full report:

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled a family cannot sue their child’s school district after the child was given the experimental COVID-19 shot against their wishes.

The child, labeled L.P. in the original complaint, was six years old when they received the shot.

According to KMPH, the child was “vaccinated at a November 2021 clinic hosted by the Windham Southeast School District and the Vermont Department of Health.”

“L.P. was a student at the district’s Academy School at the time,” the outlet added.

Court documents say L.P.’s father told a school official before the clinic the child was not to be vaccinated.

“The school official acknowledged the father’s directive, according to Friday’s ruling,” KMPH noted.

KMPH reports:

ADVERTISEMENT

Clinic workers gave L.P. one dose of the Pfizer vaccine after the child was mistakenly given a name tag reading the name of another student, according to the ruling. The second student had allegedly already received a vaccination earlier that day.

L.P. ‘verbally protested,’ saying, ‘Dad said no,'” the ruling reads.

Academy School officials eventually realized the error and called L.P.’s parents to apologize, who later removed their child from the school, according to the ruling.

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday state and school officials involved in the matter are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides liability immunity. In the event of a public health emergency, the PREP Act ensures certain “covered persons” are immune from claims causally related to the use of a “covered countermeasure.” A vaccine is considered a covered countermeasure.

“To avoid dismissal on immunity grounds, plaintiffs would have had to present wellpleaded allegations showing that (1) at least one defendant was not a covered person, (2) some conduct by a defendant was not causally related to administering a covered countermeasure, (3) the substance injected into L.P. was not a covered countermeasure, or (4) there was no PREP Act declaration in effect at the time L.P. was injected,” the ruling reads.

“The court concluded that the PREP Act provided immunity for State and school defendants involved in administering the vaccine to L.P., and that case law from other jurisdictions supported that conclusion. Deciding that defendants’ affirmative defense of federal preemption warranted dismissal, it granted the motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend,” the ruling read.

“We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs’ arguments about preemption are misplaced, and therefore we need not decide today the extent of the PREP Act’s preemptive effect. We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the dismissal because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” it continued.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law, and should be repealed. It supersedes all state tort laws and allows cronies at pharmaceutical and medical device companies to literally get away with murder as long as their victims can’t prove there was malicious intent,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has commented about the PREP Act.

From The National Desk:

ADVERTISEMENT

The high court’s ruling affirms a January 2023 decision by a state superior court.

Windham Southeast Superintendent Mark Speno apologized for the incident in a November 2021 letter to families, according to the Bennington Banner.

“Thankfully, we are not aware of any harm to the student because of this mistake,” the letter reportedly read. “We take our responsibilities to students and families very seriously, and we respect parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their children.”

Read the full ruling HERE.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up. View the original article here.

, , , , ,

 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.