Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Death of the Petitioner: Compensation Bonanza for the Government

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

The Victim Friendly National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation

Act: You've Got to Be

Kidding!

by Stanley P. Kops, Esq.

....Assume the following scenario: A child was given the oral polio

vaccine; the father (wage earner), changes the child's diaper and he

becomes paralyzed from

the neck down because the vaccine administered causes contact polio,

a fact known both to the regulator, the vaccine manufacturer and

physicians since the

early 1960s.

The parent remains completely paralyzed with his motor functions

completely destroyed, while his sensory functions are not affected

one iota. Basically, he

can only move his eyes. The medical expenses for the first 18 months

are nearly $1 million, but he has no insurance. During the 18 months

he is aware of

everything, but he cannot move any of his limbs or any part of his

body, other than his eyes. Eventually, the polio causes respiratory

failure and he dies.

It is now time to bury this innocent victim. His widow has no money,

since no income was coming in for the last 18 months. The

government/respondent not

only will not pay for the funeral, it won't even pay for the burial

plot. The government/respondent's position is very simple — if you

die the only thing the estate

is entitled to is $250,000; the $1 million in medical expenses are

the obligation of the widow. The costs of the burial and the burial

plot are the obligation of the

widow.

The fact that during those 18 months the widow, the children and the

husband suffered unbelievably, and the widow and the children will

continue to suffer for all

the years to come, is unimportant. It is not compensable. A victim

who dies as a result of the vaccine receives no money for the pain

and suffering no matter

how long they lived or how severe the suffering was for that victim.

This is not a hypothetical case, but rather a recent decision handed

down in the

case of July 30, 2002, No. 01-424V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>

> The Victim Friendly National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation

> Act: You've Got to Be

> Kidding!

> by Stanley P. Kops, Esq.

>

> ...Assume the following scenario: A child was given the oral polio

> vaccine; the father (wage earner), changes the child's diaper and he

> becomes paralyzed from

> the neck down because the vaccine administered causes contact polio,

> a fact known both to the regulator, the vaccine manufacturer and

> physicians since the

> early 1960s.

> The parent remains completely paralyzed with his motor functions

> completely destroyed, while his sensory functions are not affected

> one iota. Basically, he

> can only move his eyes. The medical expenses for the first 18 months

> are nearly $1 million, but he has no insurance. During the 18 months

> he is aware of

> everything, but he cannot move any of his limbs or any part of his

> body, other than his eyes. Eventually, the polio causes respiratory

> failure and he dies.

> It is now time to bury this innocent victim. His widow has no money,

> since no income was coming in for the last 18 months. The

> government/respondent not

> only will not pay for the funeral, it won't even pay for the burial

> plot. The government/respondent's position is very simple — if you

> die the only thing the estate

> is entitled to is $250,000; the $1 million in medical expenses are

> the obligation of the widow. The costs of the burial and the burial

> plot are the obligation of the

> widow.

> The fact that during those 18 months the widow, the children and the

> husband suffered unbelievably, and the widow and the children will

> continue to suffer for all

> the years to come, is unimportant. It is not compensable. A victim

> who dies as a result of the vaccine receives no money for the pain

> and suffering no matter

> how long they lived or how severe the suffering was for that victim.

> This is not a hypothetical case, but rather a recent decision handed

> down in the

> case of July 30, 2002, No. 01-424V.

>

Pretty scary, Better keep an eye on your kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...