Why the COVID vaccine isn't part of an injury compensation court

From inoculations against polio and smallpox to protections from measles and tetanus, vaccines are critical health care tools that have saved more than 150 million lives in the past 50 years.

Rarely, they can also have side effects. This week on 60 Minutes, correspondent Jon Wertheim reports on vaccine court, a little-known legal forum that has, for almost four decades, been compensating Americans who say they were injured by vaccines. Whether a person developed chronic arthritis after receiving an MMR vaccine or a shoulder injury resulting from a misplaced tetanus shot, the vaccine court is intended to provide an efficient way to compensate claimants without overwhelming vaccine makers with legal fees.

Read the full article here.

Our input on the content:

Inside America’s Vaccine Court: How the System Balances Justice and Public Health..

Few Americans have ever heard of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) or better known as the vaccine court although it quietly operates just blocks from the White House. Created in the 1980s, the court exists to ensure that when rare vaccine injuries occur, affected individuals are fairly compensated without jeopardizing the broader vaccination system that protects public health. For nearly four decades, it has functioned as a unique legal forum that merges compassion with pragmatism, distributing nearly $5 billion to more than 12,000 claimants while maintaining public confidence in immunization programs.

Origins: A Crisis That Changed Vaccine Law..

The vaccine court was born from a crisis in the early 1980s. Families of children allegedly harmed by the DTP vaccine, an older form of today’s DTaP, successfully sued vaccine manufacturers in civil courts. These lawsuits caused insurance costs to skyrocket, forcing all but one manufacturer to leave the market and threatening nationwide vaccine shortages. To stabilize the supply and restore trust, Congress intervened in 1986, passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

This bipartisan legislation created the VICP, a no-fault alternative to traditional litigation. The system provided partial legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers while establishing a taxpayer-funded mechanism to compensate legitimate injury claims. Lawmakers saw it as a balance between two moral imperatives: promoting widespread immunization and recognizing that, although extremely rare, some individuals would experience adverse effects.

As Senator Ted Kennedy said when introducing the bill, “When children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate government will assist them in their hour of need.”

How the Vaccine Court Works..

Unlike a traditional courtroom with juries, the vaccine court operates under the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and is presided over by eight special masters, and judges with expertise in both science and law. These special masters decide all cases, determine compensation, and interpret the evolving science behind vaccine injuries.

When an individual believes they have suffered harm from a vaccine, they file a petition through an attorney with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. They do not sue the manufacturer directly; instead, they sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers the program. Importantly, drug companies are not defendants in these cases. The proceedings are designed to be less adversarial and more efficient than civil litigation.

A key feature of the process is its “no-fault” structure. Petitioners do not need to prove negligence or misconduct by a doctor or manufacturer. They must only show that the vaccine “more likely than not” caused or aggravated an injury. The court’s role is not to assign blame but to determine causation and fair compensation.

Funding the Program..

The VICP is financed through a 75-cent excise tax on each vaccine dose recommended for children. This money goes into a trust fund used exclusively to pay settlements, attorney fees, and court operations. Thus, the system operates without drawing from general taxpayer funds and spreads the cost of rare injuries across the entire immunized population, and a public insurance model for the public good.

The Vaccine Injury Table..

Central to the court’s function is the Vaccine Injury Table, a regulatory document that lists specific vaccines and the injuries scientifically associated with them. For example, if a petitioner can show that a particular reaction, such as shoulder injury, occurred within the prescribed time window after vaccination, compensation is presumed unless there is strong evidence of another cause.

If an injury is not listed on the table, the petitioner can still win a case, but they must present medical records, expert testimony, and scientific evidence demonstrating a probable connection between the vaccine and the injury. This system allows flexibility while preserving fairness, ensuring that new or emerging medical evidence can be considered.

Illustrating the Process: The Thompson Case..

The experience of John and Huali Thompson and their son Jacob offers a window into how the process unfolds. Jacob was a healthy baby who, after receiving a routine DTaP vaccine at six months, began suffering developmental regression and severe seizures. His parents, who remain pro-vaccine, believed the shots triggered or worsened an underlying genetic condition.

Their attorney, Renée Gentry, filed a petition on Jacob’s behalf in vaccine court. After several years of expert testimony and medical review, a special master ruled that the vaccine had “more likely than not” aggravated Jacob’s condition. The Thompsons were awarded $2.1 million and a lifetime annuity for his care. The case illustrates the program’s philosophy: compensation without accusation. No one was found negligent; the court simply acknowledged a rare adverse outcome and ensured the family’s needs were met.

Delays and Backlogs..

While the court’s framework is compassionate and scientifically grounded, its execution has grown strained. Today, more than 3,000 cases await resolution. Some claimants wait years for decisions.

The case of Ryan Farrell, a lineman from Massachusetts, highlights the challenge. After a tetanus shot, Farrell developed a rare autoimmune condition that left him in chronic pain and unable to work. He filed his claim in 2019 and did not receive a ruling on causation until 2024. As of late 2025, the amount of his compensation remains undecided.

Balancing Science, Compassion, and Policy..

Despite its challenges, the vaccine court remains a model of pragmatic policymaking. It encourages vaccine development by shielding manufacturers from crippling lawsuits while offering injured individuals a credible, science-based path to relief. Its lower burden of proof and guaranteed attorney payment system makes it accessible even for families with limited means.

The court’s existence also serves a symbolic function: it acknowledges that while vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and beneficial saving millions of lives worldwide. The government’s willingness to accept responsibility for these rare harms reinforces public trust in vaccination as a shared social contract.

As attorney Gentry puts it, “It’s better to compensate someone who wasn’t injured than to miss someone who was.” The vaccine court embodies that ethos, a commitment to fairness, compassion, and collective responsibility. It remains a crucial mechanism ensuring that the nation’s vaccination system protects not just the many, but also the few who bear its unintended costs.

(This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, please consult a qualified vaccine injury attorney or licensed legal professional in your jurisdiction.)