Vaccine court: Where Americans who suffer rare injury after vaccination can take their claims

If you've never before heard of the national vaccine court, you're hardly alone. It sits inconspicuously, a few hundred yards from the White House; and stands as a model of effective public policy, balancing the societal good of widespread vaccination with rare individual harm. Founded in the 1980s, the court has, with little fanfare, paid out billions of dollars to Americans who have claimed injury after getting a vaccine. Today, with vaccine skepticism rising and given voice in the highest ranks of government, we wondered: can this singular court block out the noise, withstand the political winds, and stay true to its mission? 

Read the full article here.

Our input on the content:

Balancing Public Health and Justice: How the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Protects Both..

In a recent 60 Minutes segment, correspondent Jon Wertheim spoke with John Thompson and vaccine-injury attorney Renée Gentry about one of the most misunderstood yet vital aspects of American health law, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Their discussion offers a valuable reminder for attorneys, policymakers, and the public: effective vaccine injury law is about balance. It safeguards the integrity of national immunization programs while ensuring justice and care for individuals who experience rare adverse reactions.

1. Vaccines, Public Trust, and Informed Consent..
John Thompson, the parent of a vaccine-injured child, emphasized a nuanced position often lost in the broader vaccine debate. “We’re definitely not anti-vaxxers,” he said. “Vaccines are great. They’ve done a lot to help people. But parents need to know what can happen.”

From a medical legal ethics standpoint, this reflects the doctrine of informed consent, which requires that patients, or, in pediatric cases, parents, understand both the potential benefits and risks of treatment. Vaccines remain one of the most successful public health interventions in modern history, but in extremely rare instances, serious side effects occur.

For those few individuals, the legal system provides a specialized mechanism for remedy: the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, often referred to as Vaccine Court.

2. The Legal Framework: The Vaccine Act and the Creation of the VICP..
As attorney Renée Gentry explained, “If what you care about are vaccine-injured people and them being compensated, then you want this court to work.”

Her statement refers to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers the VICP under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The program emerged in response to a wave of tort litigation during the 1980s that threatened to destabilize vaccine production. Facing multimillion-dollar lawsuits, several manufacturers considered exiting the market entirely, jeopardizing national immunization efforts.

To balance public health imperatives with individual justice, Congress created a no-fault compensation system. Instead of suing vaccine manufacturers directly, claimants file petitions in Vaccine Court. They need not prove negligence or wrongdoing, only that the evidence supports a causal link between vaccination and injury.

Compensation under the VICP may include:
• Lifetime medical care and rehabilitation
• Lost wages or earning capacity
• Pain and suffering (subject to statutory caps)
• Attorneys’ fees and expert costs

This framework ensures fairness for injured individuals while shielding manufacturers from ruinous liability, thus maintaining a stable vaccine supply.

3. A Bipartisan Compromise that Still Works..
Gentry aptly describes the VICP as “bipartisan” and born of “compromise.” In a political era where compromise is often viewed negatively, her words highlight the program’s enduring success. The Vaccine Act represents a pragmatic middle ground: it promotes public health policy while providing equitable relief through the legal system.

The VICP thus stands as an example of effective legislative design, one that merges science, law, and ethics. It acknowledges that vaccines are indispensable to community health but that rare injuries deserve recognition and care.

4. A Human Perspective: Dignity and Justice for the Injured..
Gentry’s comment that Jacob, Thompson’s son, “will be taken care of for the rest of his life because of this program” underscores the program’s human dimension. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is not only about monetary awards; it’s about restoring dignity and security to families affected by vaccine injuries.

From a public health law perspective, this outcome serves three vital purposes:

1. It alleviates financial and emotional burdens on families.

2. It reduces adversarial litigation that could undermine vaccine confidence.

3. It preserves public trust in the broader vaccination system.

The program’s success is reflected in its longevity, nearly four decades of continuous operation, and in the billions of dollars awarded to claimants while keeping vaccine production viable and litigation manageable.

5. Lessons for Legal Practitioners and Policymakers..
For attorneys, particularly those practicing in medical injury law or health policy litigation, the VICP presents both a model and a challenge. Its structure demonstrates how alternative dispute resolution and specialized adjudication can achieve fairness more efficiently than traditional tort systems.

However, the system’s continued effectiveness depends on adequate funding, timely case resolution, and sustained bipartisan support. As misinformation and vaccine hesitancy rise, vaccine lawyers and policymakers must reaffirm public understanding of the program’s purpose: it is not anti-vaccine, it is pro-accountability and pro-justice.

Legal professionals can play a key role by:
• Educating clients and communities about the existence and function of the VICP
• Advocating for improvements to case processing and transparency
• Upholding the principle that fairness and science can coexist within the law

6. Preserving Trust Through Law..
At its core, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program demonstrates how law can mediate between collective welfare and individual rights. It protects public health by stabilizing vaccine production while delivering justice to those harmed by rare side effects.

As Jon Wertheim summarized during the segment, “We have this program that incentivizes the manufacturing of vaccines but also acknowledges that in some rare cases, there are injuries and damages.” This dual recognition, of societal benefit and individual loss, is what makes the VICP a legal innovation worth preserving.

In a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, the program offers a model for how public health litigation and administrative law can work together to sustain both confidence and compassion. Renée Gentry’s call to “make this court work” should resonate with all who value justice, compromise, and effective governance.

Because ultimately, as this discussion reminds us, the measure of a fair society is not whether it avoids harm altogether, but how it responds when harm occurs.

(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.)