N※N

States Sue HHS Over Vaccine Injury Program Changes

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2026/ .. sue-hhs-over-vaccine-injury-program-changes.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Thursday, March 5th 2026 at 3:44 GMT by Seattle Times
      Locales: Washington, California, Illinois, New York, UNITED STATES

Washington, D.C. - March 5th, 2026 - A coalition of fifteen states has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice, challenging recent alterations to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The legal action, initiated Tuesday in federal court, alleges that the changes, enacted in early 2026, significantly restrict the rights of individuals seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries and violate the original intent of the VICP.

The lawsuit centers on modifications implemented by HHS that severely limit access to legal representation and the discovery of crucial evidence for petitioners. These changes, finalized last month, have sparked outrage among attorneys representing those claiming vaccine injuries, who argue they effectively create an insurmountable barrier to justice.

Established in 1986, the VICP was designed as a no-fault compensation system, providing a pathway for individuals injured by vaccines to receive financial support without the need for protracted and costly litigation. Funded by a tax on vaccines, the program aimed to balance the need to encourage vaccine production with the responsibility of caring for those who experience adverse reactions. However, legal experts now claim these recent changes undermine that balance.

"The core principle of the VICP was to provide a fair and accessible avenue for legitimate claims," explains Claire Ryan, lead attorney for the Public Justice Foundation, representing the states. "These new regulations, however, are clearly designed to shield the federal government and vaccine manufacturers from accountability, at the expense of injured individuals."

The specific changes under fire include drastically curtailed access to documents held by HHS and vaccine manufacturers. Petitioners were previously able to request documents relevant to their case, allowing attorneys to build a comprehensive understanding of the potential link between the vaccine and the injury. The new rules significantly limit these requests, creating what attorneys describe as a 'black box' effect.

Furthermore, the changes restrict the use of depositions - sworn testimonies taken under oath - which are critical for gathering information from key witnesses. The limitations imposed make it exceedingly difficult to obtain vital evidence necessary to substantiate claims. The states argue this directly contradicts the due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The states involved in the lawsuit - California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington - represent a diverse geographical and political spectrum, indicating the widespread concern over the implications of these changes.

The Trump administration, at the time of the initial rule changes, defended the modifications, claiming they were necessary to address concerns about program efficiency and reduce processing times for claims. Officials suggested the program had become bogged down in unnecessary litigation, delaying compensation for valid cases. However, critics counter that streamlining should not come at the cost of fairness and access to justice.

The current administration has continued to support the changes, framing them as responsible fiscal stewardship. A spokesperson for HHS stated, "We believe these adjustments are a necessary step to ensure the long-term sustainability of the VICP and to focus resources on those with the most compelling claims." This statement has done little to appease the plaintiffs.

Lisa Blatt, another attorney representing the states, sharply disagreed, stating, "These changes are a disservice to those who have been legitimately injured by vaccines. The administration seems to be prioritizing cost savings over the well-being of its citizens."

Beyond the legal arguments, the lawsuit raises broader questions about transparency and accountability within the vaccine safety net. Patient advocacy groups have expressed concern that the changes will discourage individuals from reporting adverse events, potentially leading to an underestimation of vaccine-related injuries. They also worry about the erosion of public trust in the VICP, which is intended to be a neutral and impartial system.

The states are seeking a court order overturning the HHS changes and restoring the previous rules governing the VICP. The outcome of this case is expected to have significant implications for individuals seeking compensation for vaccine injuries and could shape the future of vaccine safety oversight in the United States.