A state Supreme Court has given the green light for children to be force-vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
On Tuesday, Maine’s Supreme Court dismissed a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a father whose 5-year-old daughter had been injected with a Covid mRNA “vaccine” against his wishes.
The father, Jeremiah Hogan, filed the lawsuit against Lincoln Medical Partners and its parent company, MaineHealth, Inc.
The case Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners raised significant legal questions about the scope of immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
The high court’s March 4 ruling also raises concerns as it sets a precedent for institutions to begin vaccinating children against their parents’ wishes.
In November 2021, at a school clinic operated by Lincoln Medical, medical staff administered the Pfizer’s Covid mRNA “vaccine” to the young child of Jeremiah Hogan and Siara Jean Harrington without obtaining their consent.
Alleging medical malpractice, Hogan filed a notice of claim on May 4, 2023, under the Maine Health Security Act in Superior Court.
The complaint included claims of professional negligence, systemic professional negligence, battery, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with parental rights, and negligent supervision.
Lincoln Medical moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the PREP Act.
The PREP Act provides immunity from legal liability for covered persons administering covered countermeasures during a public health emergency.
The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss on April 18, 2024.
The ruling determined that all named defendants were protected by the Act.
The only option left for Hogan was to appeal the decision.
The PREP Act, enacted to shield individuals and entities involved in pandemic response from liability, states that “a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration” of a covered “countermeasure.”
A countermeasure includes any drug or biological product authorized for emergency use under federal law.
Furthermore, the Act extends immunity to “qualified persons,” including licensed healthcare providers who administer vaccines.
The court determined that Lincoln Medical and its staff met the criteria for immunity because:
- The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid “vaccine” was classified as a “covered countermeasure.”
- The “vaccine” was administered by a “qualified person” as defined under the Act.
- The administration occurred during the effective period of a federal declaration related to the pandemic.
The PREP Act includes a narrow exception to immunity for cases involving “willful misconduct.”
This is defined as intentional wrongdoing with a disregard for an obvious risk.
However, the Act requires that claims under this exception be filed in federal court after exhausting administrative remedies through a federal compensation program.
Since Hogan’s lawsuit did not allege “willful misconduct” in a federal jurisdiction, the court found no grounds to bypass the Act’s immunity provisions.
Hogan also contended that the PREP Act should not preempt state common law claims.
However, the court noted that the Act explicitly preempts state laws that conflict with its provisions.
The court cited precedents from other jurisdictions, such as Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department and M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
Both of those cases similarly upheld immunity under the PREP Act for healthcare providers administering “vaccines” without explicit parental consent.
This ruling reinforces the broad scope of the PREP Act’s immunity provisions, limiting legal recourse for claims related to the administration of pandemic-related medical “countermeasures.”
Hogan argued that the lack of parental consent constituted a violation of fundamental parental rights.
Nevetheless, the court found that public health emergency protections superseded such claims.
The decision highlights the difficulty of challenging medical actions taken under emergency-use authorizations and emphasizes the limited legal pathways available for individuals seeking redress in similar situations.
The ruling aligns with prior court decisions favoring federal immunity for healthcare providers involved in pandemic response efforts.
Hogan’s case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding medical liability during public health emergencies and the strong legal protections afforded to healthcare providers under federal law.
Unfortunately, the case has exposed a loophole that allows children to be vaccinated against the wishes of their own families.
Those who force-vaccinate children can now also claim immunity under the PREP Act.
