Vaccine Exemption Cases
In the Matter of AK vs. SC School District (2007); United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
This case involved the denial of a religious exemption for a kindergartner diagnosed with autism. The child plaintiffs’ parents hold religious beliefs contrary to the practice of vaccinating, and sought an exemption under NYS PHL 2164 (9) for AK to attend public school. School officials however did not believe that the parents’ religious beliefs were sincere and genuine, and denied the religious exemption excluding the child-plaintiff from school. Ms. Finn successfully argued and won a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and child-plaintiff AK was granted a religious exemption and allowed to return to school. After successfully winning the preliminary injunction this case was settled.
In the Matter of RM vs. C. School District (2007); United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
This case involved a “contract” that the defendant C. School District required for the parents of a non-immunized child to sign as a condition of granting a religious exemption from vaccines. The “contract” included language that the non-immunized student could be excluded from school in the case of “any potential threat of any vaccine-preventable disease.” When a suspected case of pertusis was reported in the school district child-plaintiff RM was excluded from school. An action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to invalidate the school required “contract” as being unconstitutional reasoning that individuals do not have to “contract” for rights protected by the First Amendment and provided under state law.
The matter was discontinued and a settlement was reached wherein the client was reimbursed legal fees by the offending school board, and the “contract” was deemed null and void and the religious exemption granted.
In the Matter of DC vs. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General, Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Services, United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (2007)
This case involved a family living in the State of Georgia who sought permanent adjustment status in the United States after nearly two decades of working and residing in the United States. Due to their religious beliefs, plaintiffs could not comply with the vaccine requirements within the Immigration and Customs Act. Plaintiffs sought a religious exemption from vaccines provided for by the Act and protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A lawsuit was commenced in August of 2007 after the exemption request was denied by INS in the Atlanta, Ga. district office. The firm initially represented the family at the Atlanta INS District Office hearing concerning the application for the religious exemption. After the hearing, the Atlanta INS District Office improperly ruled that being Christian was not a “good enough religion” to warrant the exemption, and denied DC’s request for a religious exemption. When negotiations failed with INS the plaintiffs had no recourse but to file a lawsuit claiming a First Amendment violation.
The case was settled, and the district office ruling overturned and the family was granted permanent adjustment in the United States as of November 2007.
In the Matter of KF vs. BBP School District, and In the Matter of SN vs. BBP School District, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (2004)
This case involved two unrelated families that were denied religious exemptions during the same school year by the defendant BBP School District. The United States District Court for the Eastern District consolidated the cases, and both matters were heard together. After the hearings the Court granted a preliminary injunction granting the religious exemption for KF, but not for SN. The Court ruled the testimony of SN’s parents was insufficient to establish sincere religious beliefs contrary to vaccinating and required for SN to proceed to trial.
The matters were settled.
In the Matter of JD & JD vs. PRC School (2006), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
This case involved two children (brother and sister) attending a catholic school in New York State. Until recently, the Archdiocese of New York would not grant a religious exemption for Catholic school children to attend parochial school under any circumstances. The case was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, but was dismissed by the federal court Judge who ruled that the Catholic schools have a competing First Amendment interest. The Judge directed the case to be re-filed in the New York State Supreme Court.
The case was not refilled because the mother did not want to continue with the proceedings. Ms. Finn was able to negotiate to have the children continue the school year at PRC School and avoid immediate expulsion as part of a settlement. In the interim Ms. Finn continued to work with the Archdiocese on the matter, and recently in December of 2007 the Archdiocese reversed their position and there is no longer a standing blanket rejection for Catholic school children to secure religious exemptions to attend parochial schools in the New York Archdiocese. This change in position of the Archdiocese is of enormous significance and effects hundreds of Catholic families that Ms. Finn represents throughout New York State who oppose vaccines due to Christian based religious beliefs.
In the Matter of H.H. vs. RH School District, (2006); United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
This case involved a high school lacrosse player in Rochester, New York who was excluded from his lacrosse team because he refused a tetanus injection due to religious beliefs. In a highly unusual and unprecedented move, the defendant school board granted the religious exemption for academia and allowed the plaintiff-child to attend school, but the defendant school board would not extend the religious exemption to participation in sports.
In this important case the Court ruled that the federal and state laws providing for the religious exemption from vaccines indeed covers both sports and academia. The Court in its Opinion also carved out an important exception for tetanus indicating that it was different from other vaccines in that tetanus is not “disease,” and therefore one student refusing the tetanus shot posed little risk to others in balancing the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs against the public health interest. The firm successfully argued the case in the federal district court of Rochester, New York, and won a preliminary injunction allowing for the child to play lacrosse without receiving the tetanus shot.
Unborn Children Cases
Our firm is increasingly handling unborn children cases wherein expecting parents are rejecting certain birthing treatments administered to newborns including the hepatitis vaccine, silver nitrate eye drops, vitamin K and diagnostic hearing tests based upon religious beliefs contrary to these practices. Our firm has helped more than 50 expecting parents opt out of these treatments by obtaining religious exemptions with only a few legal complications all of which were resolved through negotiations without litigation.
Immigration and Adoption Cases
The Immigrations and Customs Act (“Act”) requires that individuals seeking permanent adjustment status in the United States be immunized in accordance with provisions of the Act. The firm represents individuals who cannot comply with the Act’s vaccine requirements and has assisted in obtaining “waivers” exempting applicants from the immunization provisions of the law. Several of these cases involved babies being adopted outside of the United States. These matters are so complex and very little law exists to provide guidance or reliable precedents.
Vaccine Injury Cases
In the Matter of KD vs. HHS (2008)
KD is a NYC Fireman who was injured during 9/11. While being treated post 9/11 by the City of New York Fire Department doctors, KD was given an MMR vaccine was alleged to have developed GBS (Guillaine Barre Syndrome). The case is being settled for an undisclosed amount.
In the Matter of KB vs. HHS (2004)
This case involved an infant who was given a vaccine during a routine well baby visit. The child had a serious reaction at the injection site, and her leg swelled to three times its normal size. However, the injury did not require surgical intervention and hospitalization was less than five days making the child ineligible for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Act. The Department of Justice agreed and the child was compensated under the Vaccine Injury Act.
Summary
The above is only a brief synopsis of the cases handled by the firm, and of course not every case is successful. The firm deals with thousands of legal matters involving vaccines each year, and many parents are frustrated by the legal process, the short statute of limitations and the “religion test” that many school boards force parents to endure. Each day the firm fields dozens of calls from concerned parents and individuals who want information about their rights to avoid vaccines and their rights to redress injuries to their children allegedly caused by vaccines.
