2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Liability and maternal immunization: in utero injury claims in the VICP

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Potential liability issues are a consideration for a vaccine strategy targeted at women with childbearing potential. Of note, the issue of whether in utero injuries are compensable under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act has not been resolved 36 .…”
Section: Use Of a CMV Vaccine In Different Target Populations To Prevmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Potential liability issues are a consideration for a vaccine strategy targeted at women with childbearing potential. Of note, the issue of whether in utero injuries are compensable under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act has not been resolved 36 .…”
Section: Use Of a CMV Vaccine In Different Target Populations To Prevmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because these vaccines are covered under the VICP, the manufacturers and administrators of such vaccines generally are afforded the Vaccine Act's liability protections. 57 Although these 2 vaccines are currently covered under the provisions of the VICP, maternal immunizations in general still have several coverage gaps that endanger the manufacturer's liability protection. Although influenza and Tdap vaccines are covered under the VICP, new categories of vaccines that would potentially be indicated only for use during pregnancy and not routinely recommended for use in children would not be covered under this program if they were not also recommended for use in children.…”
Section: Nvac Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some special masters and judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims have rendered decisions concluding that Congress intended "receipt" to mean only direct injection, thereby precluding compensation for in utero injuries, whereas others have concluded that Congress intended "receipt" to have a broader meaning that includes in utero receipt. 202 However, none of these decisions are binding, because only the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (or the U.S. Supreme Court) sets binding precedent over the VICP. To date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has not addressed the issue of compensability of in utero injuries, so the question has not been resolved.…”
Section: Vaccine Liability Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Programmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Uncertainties surrounding maternal immunizations and vaccine liability under the VICP create barriers that limit obstetrical care providers' willingness to administer immunizations during pregnancy. To be considered for compensation, a petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury (or death) was caused or significantly aggravated by the vaccine and that the vaccine received was listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. 202 A presumption of causation is provided if an injury meets all of the requirements for an injury listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. Vaccines included in the Vaccine Injury Table are all those that have been recommended by CDC for routine use in children, for which an excise tax has been imposed, and that the Secretary of HHS has added to the VICP. The VICP trust fund provides funds to the VICP through the excise tax that is imposed on these vaccines.…”
Section: Vaccine Liability Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Programmentioning
confidence: 99%