Senate Judiciary reviews narrow liability protection for vaccine providers in H.545; calls for transparency questions

The Senate Judiciary Committee met Feb. 12 to review a narrow portion of H.545 that would protect health‑care providers from civil liability for administering immunizations in accordance with the state health commissioner’s recommendations, unless the provider acted recklessly, grossly negligently or with intentional misconduct.

Allison Despati, who identified herself as co‑director of "Health Church Vermont" and said she represents roughly 5,000 Vermonters, urged the committee to consider transparency measures if Vermont adopts a schedule that differs from the federal schedule. Despati described the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the resulting National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and said that if a vaccine were removed from the federal schedule but retained by the state, injured patients might lose access to VICP and instead be required to pursue remedies through the tort system. "So you are not responsible for the safety of your product," she summarized of the federal liability shield, arguing that patients should be informed if a state decision changes their compensation options.

Lauren Layman, general counsel at the Vermont Department of Health, told the committee the VICP was created to maintain access to vaccines after lengthy and costly tort litigation reduced manufacturer and provider participation. Layman said vaccines are added to VICP through CDC recommendation and Congressional action and described the program as an alternative process within federal claims to address causation and compensation. In response to a committee question, Layman said that if a vaccine is not covered by VICP, injured parties could pursue claims in the tort system but would face a similarly challenging process and could receive higher awards not borne by taxpayers.

Layman emphasized that the H.545 provision under review is narrow and protects providers only when they administer vaccines in accordance with the commissioner’s evidence‑based recommendations; it does not extend to pharmaceutical manufacturers. She also said existing state law requires informed consent (quoted in testimony as "12 BSA 19 o 9") and cautioned that requiring providers to recite liability options or compensation pathways during routine administration could unduly alarm patients and fall outside normal physician‑patient practice: "To have to disclose your liability options when it comes to a vaccine administration ... is unnecessarily alarming," she said.

Committee members asked about the geographic scope of the research underlying federal schedules and how the department would document the evidence supporting any state recommendation. Layman said the department would consult national organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians and would aim for transparency about the sources and process behind recommendations.

The committee chair said the Judiciary panel’s jurisdiction in this hearing was limited to page 7, lines 1–7 of H.545 and, based on the testimony provided, reported no recommended changes to that section. Committee members present indicated they were satisfied with the language under the committee’s jurisdiction. No formal motion or vote was taken during the session; the chair noted the bill would proceed to markup in the originating committee.