Court allows mother and son to sue over unwanted COVID-19 vaccine
- The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that a mother and her son can pursue a lawsuit regarding unauthorized vaccination.
- The controversy stems from an incident where the 14-year-old received a COVID-19 vaccine without consent at a school clinic in 2021.
- The ruling emphasizes the importance of consent, allowing the family to assert their rights in a court of law.
In North Carolina, a pivotal legal decision was made regarding unauthorized medical treatment, particularly during public health emergencies. The North Carolina Supreme Court on March 24, 2025, reversed earlier rulings from both a trial court and an appellate court, which had dismissed a lawsuit filed by Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith. The lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred in August 2021, when Tanner, then 14, received a COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at a Guilford County high school. He had gone there for COVID-19 testing due to a cluster of cases among his school’s football team, completely unaware that vaccinations were also being administered at the site. Tanner explicitly expressed his desire not to receive the vaccine and did not possess a signed parental consent form. When clinic staff were unable to contact Emily Happel to obtain consent, a worker instructed another to proceed with the vaccination anyway, leading the mother and son to file a lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, which oversaw the clinic. They claimed that their constitutional rights were violated and alleged battery, as the vaccine was administered without proper consent. A significant aspect of the legal battle revolved around the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which originally shielded the school and medical professionals from liability during declared public health emergencies. Prior rulings had concluded that the PREP Act offered immunity to these entities, thus preventing the lawsuit from proceeding. The ruling delivered on March 24 clarified that the federal law does not obstruct state constitutional claims. Chief Justice Paul Newby articulated that a parent's right to control their child's medical decisions and a competent individual’s right to refuse non-mandatory medical treatment were fundamental rights deserving legal protection. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of consent in medical procedures, suggesting that violations of constitutional rights do not fall under the PREP Act’s immunity. This ruling may set a precedent highlighting the balance between public health measures during emergencies and individual rights.