No. 24-682

Dario Politella, et al. v. Windham Southeast School District, et al.

Lower Court: Vermont
Docketed: 2024-12-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: covered-countermeasure emergency-use immunity preemption public-health subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Vermont Supreme Court has improperly construed the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act's (PREPA) immunity provisions beyond Congressional intent

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

In Vermont, a young schoolboy was injected with a emergency use “covered countermeasure” against his and his parents’ express refusals. Officials claimed “mistake”; the family filed suit. The trial court dismissed all claims and on appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court opined that all Respondents are immune from suit under the “Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (“PREPA”). The Vermont Supreme Court misapprehended PREPA’s scope, and the framework it intends. A decision that defines the scope of PREPA preemption and immunity would be very useful to courts, authorities and litigants who struggle beneath the current tangled jurisprudence, much of it poorly reasoned. Under PREPA, “a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability” for “all claims… caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from” administration of a “covered countermeasure.” This immunity is conditioned on compliance with emergency use protocols and all public health guidance of the “Authority Having Jurisdiction.” Question: whether the Vermont Supreme Court has construed PREPA’s immunity beyond Congress’ intention? 3 PARTIES TO THE PRECEEDINGS BELOW Petitioners are the Politella family: L.P. (a young boy) and his parents. As Plaintiffs in Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division, Windham Unit, their Complaint and Amended Complaint were dismissed for failure to state a claim due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on federal preemption under PREPA. In Vermont Supreme Court, they were Appellants in an unsuccessful appeal. Respondents are the Windham Southeast School District and the State of Vermont, along with their agents. These are: Patricia Walior, First Grade Teacher; Amy Mejer, School Nurse; Jon Sessions, Vice Principal; Kelly Dias, Principal; Mark Speno, Windham Southeast School District Superintendent; John and/or Jane Does #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5; Susan Slowinski, M.D., and Dianne Champion, Vermont Department of Health Public Health Director. These named parties were sued in their official capacities, and appeared collectively as Defendants in the Windham County Superior Court. On appeal, they were Appellees in Vermont Supreme Court, and did prevail.

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-27
Waiver of Kelly Dougherty, Susan Slowinski, MD and State of Vermont of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-27
Waiver of Windham Southeast School District, Patricia Walior, Amy Mejer, Jon Sessions, Kelly Dias and Mark Speno of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-27
Waiver of right of respondents Windham Southeast School District, Patricia Walior, Amy Mejer, Jon Sessions, Kelly Dias and Mark Speno to respond filed.
2025-01-27
Waiver of right of respondents Kelly Dougherty, Susan Slowinski, MD and State of Vermont to respond filed.
2024-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 27, 2025)

Attorneys

Dario and Shujen Politella, et al.
John Stoddard KlarJohn Stoddard Klar, Petitioner
John Stoddard KlarJohn Stoddard Klar, Petitioner
Kelly Dougherty, Susan Slowinski, MD and State of Vermont
Jonathan Todd RoseOffice of the Vermont Attorney General, Respondent
Jonathan Todd RoseOffice of the Vermont Attorney General, Respondent
Windham Southeast School District, Patricia Walior, Amy Mejer, Jon Sessions, Kelly Dias and Mark Speno
Pietro J. LynnLynn, Lynn, Blackman & Toohey, P.C., Respondent
Pietro J. LynnLynn, Lynn, Blackman & Toohey, P.C., Respondent