What It Means for Vaccine Injury Lawsuits

How Trump’s Health Secretary Has Put Personal-Injury Lawyers Back in Play.

The strange case of vaccine-injury courts, six months later

---

President Donald Trump has long mocked personal-injury attorneys, deriding them as “ambulance chasers” and dismissing them as the “lawyer lobby.” Yet in February 2025, he elevated one of their own. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the oath of office as the 26th U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services on February 13, standing beside Trump and his deputy Jim O’Neill, it marked a stunning turn in Washington politics.

Kennedy, a former personal-injury and environmental lawyer who has spent years questioning vaccine safety, is now in charge of the very agencies that regulate vaccines and public health. For most Americans, this appointment was startling enough. But for trial lawyers who specialize in personal injury, it looked like an unexpected gift.

The reason: a little-known but hugely consequential legal system known as the vaccine-injury court.

---

The Origins of Vaccine-Injury Courts

Vaccine-injury courts were born out of crisis. In the 1970s and 1980s, vaccine manufacturers faced a growing wave of lawsuits from families who said their children had been injured by routine immunizations. Juries handed down multimillion-dollar verdicts. Manufacturers warned that if litigation continued unchecked, they might abandon the vaccine market altogether [HHS History Office].

Congress stepped in. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) — a unique “no-fault” tribunal within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

How it works:

• Instead of suing vaccine makers in civil court, injured individuals file claims with the VICP.

• Special masters — judges appointed to these cases — hear petitions.

• Payouts come from a federal trust fund financed by a small tax on every vaccine dose administered.

• Families can be compensated for medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering (capped at $250,000 in death cases).

Since its creation, the VICP has paid out more than $5 billion to claimants [HRSA]. But while the system was designed to protect vaccine supply and provide swift compensation, critics — especially trial lawyers — argue it insulates drug companies from true accountability.

---

Myths and Realities About Vaccine Courts

Vaccine-injury courts are surrounded by misinformation. Some myths come from vaccine skeptics, others from lawyers or activists frustrated by the program’s limits.

Myth: Vaccine courts deny almost all claims.
Reality: While standards are strict, thousands of families have won compensation. Roughly 70% of payouts result from settlements [HRSA].

Myth: Families can’t sue vaccine makers at all.
Reality: The 1986 law largely shields manufacturers, but claimants can pursue limited civil action if their petition fails. However, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011), the Supreme Court held that design-defect claims are preempted, meaning most lawsuits outside the program face steep barriers [DOJ].

Myth: Vaccine court payouts are generous.
Reality: Awards are often modest compared to jury verdicts in injury cases. Pain and suffering caps have not been adjusted for inflation in nearly 40 years, frustrating many families and lawyers.

Myth: The program covers all vaccine injuries.
Reality: Only certain conditions on the “vaccine injury table” qualify automatically. Families with other claims face a higher burden of proof.

By design, the system is a compromise. It prevents a flood of lawsuits that could cripple vaccine supply while still acknowledging that injuries, though rare, do occur.

---

Why Trial Lawyers See Opportunity in Kennedy

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now leading HHS, trial lawyers see a chance to revisit — and possibly expand — the vaccine-injury system. Kennedy has long argued that vaccine safety data is incomplete and that injured families deserve more transparency [source].

Areas where lawyers expect openings:

1. Broadening the Vaccine Injury Table
   HHS, through HRSA, has the power to revise the vaccine injury table. Expanding recognized conditions would make it easier for families to win cases without protracted legal fights. Kennedy could directly influence this process through regulatory action.

2. Raising Compensation Caps
   The current $250,000 death benefit cap has not been updated since 1987. Trial lawyers argue it should be closer to $650,000 today, adjusted for inflation — more in line with awards commonly seen in medical malpractice cases. Changing that cap would require an act of Congress, though Kennedy could push for reforms or lobby lawmakers to revisit it

3. Weakening Liability Protections
   The most controversial possibility, and one trial lawyers dream about, is reopening the door to direct lawsuits against vaccine makers. That would require Congress to amend the 1986 law, but Kennedy’s influence could help put the issue back on the political agenda.

For personal-injury attorneys, that prospect is tantalizing. Vaccine litigation could become as lucrative as asbestos or tobacco cases once were, with the added weight of sympathetic plaintiffs and powerful corporate defendants.

---

The Risks to Public Health

What excites trial lawyers alarms many doctors and public health officials. The creation of vaccine courts in 1986 was a response to an existential problem: companies threatened to stop producing vaccines altogether under the weight of lawsuits. If Kennedy pushes too far, history could repeat itself.

Key risks:

• Reduced Supply: Drugmakers could raise prices or exit the vaccine market if liability expands.

• Eroded Trust: Expanding litigation could validate anti-vaccine narratives, undermining confidence in routine immunization.

• Public Health Threats: Even small drops in vaccination rates can fuel outbreaks of diseases like measles and polio [CDC].

Kennedy argues that justice for injured families does not conflict with strong public health policy. But most scientists warn that signaling greater legal risk around vaccines could accelerate skepticism already fueled by social media and political polarization [Pew Research].

---

Pros and Cons of Reform

Vaccine courts carry real trade-offs.

Advantages of Reform:

• Families could receive fairer, updated compensation.

• Greater transparency could rebuild trust among skeptics.

• Trial lawyers argue accountability pressures manufacturers to maintain safety standards.

Drawbacks:

• Expanded litigation could destabilize vaccine supply.

• Jury trials risk huge, inconsistent verdicts based more on emotion than science.

• Public confidence could erode, making outbreaks more likely.

In short, vaccine courts are designed to balance individual justice with collective safety. Kennedy’s tenure may tip the scales.

---

Trump, Politics, and the Lawyer Lobby

For Trump, the Kennedy appointment was a political masterstroke. By installing a high-profile vaccine skeptic and personal-injury lawyer at HHS, he appealed to multiple constituencies: anti-establishment voters wary of vaccines, trial lawyers typically aligned with Democrats, and conservatives frustrated with “big pharma.”

It also reflects Trump’s transactional approach. Though he has long vilified personal-injury lawyers, he sees in Kennedy a useful ally. And Kennedy, by embracing a powerful cabinet role, gains the platform to reshape a system he has criticized for decades.

Whether this alliance endures will depend on what reforms Kennedy actually pursues. Congress and the courts will almost certainly push back if he tries to dismantle the 1986 framework. But even modest adjustments — higher payouts, more qualifying conditions — could mean billions in new claims and a windfall for trial lawyers.

---

The Bottom Line

Donald Trump once mocked trial lawyers as parasites. Now, his own Health Secretary may hand them the opportunity of a generation. Vaccine courts, long a niche legal system, suddenly sit at the center of America’s battles over law, science, and trust.

The question is whether reforms will deliver overdue justice to families — or destabilize a system that has safeguarded vaccines, and public health, for nearly forty years.

---

FAQ / People Also Ask

What is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?
A federal program created in 1986 to provide compensation for rare vaccine injuries. It operates as a no-fault tribunal, with payouts funded by a tax on vaccine doses.

Can families sue vaccine manufacturers directly?
Not usually. Most claims must go through the VICP. Civil suits are limited, and in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that design-defect claims are preempted, sharply limiting liability.

How much money has been awarded through vaccine courts?
Over $5 billion since 1986 [HRSA].

Why are personal-injury lawyers interested?
Because loosening restrictions could reopen lucrative jury trials against pharmaceutical companies.

What risks come with reform?
Expanded litigation could raise vaccine prices, reduce supply, and erode public trust in immunization.