	Introduction

In October 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Bruesewitz v. Wyeth , a case which involves the scope of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The issue before the Court was whether 42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-22(b)(1) of the act precludes all vaccine design defect claims even if the vaccine's side effects were avoidable, in other words whether the section preempts vaccine design defect claims categorically, or whether the vaccine manufacturer has to show on a case-by-case basis that the side effects could not have been avoided by some alternatively designed vaccine. This report provides an overview of the structure of the Vaccine Act and the relevant facts of the Bruesewitz case. It then examines the lower court decisions before reviewing the Supreme Court decision. Finally, it discusses the decision's potential effect on preemption jurisprudence as well as on the existing Vaccine Act litigation. Under the Vaccine Act, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Compensation Program) was established to handle claims against drug manufacturers for vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Separately, recent scientific publications, which have declared that there appears to be no link between immunizations and autism or other serious medical problems, may also hinder current and future claimants' ability to prove their claims. In the past, Congress has introduced legislation to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court.
While recent scientific publications have declared that there appears to be no link between immunizations and autism or other serious medical problems, a recent Journal of Pediatrics survey of parents with children between the ages of six months and six years old reveals that about 13% of parents used a vaccination plan that varied from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended schedule, because of concerns that receiving multiple vaccinations in a short span of time is less safe than delaying certain vaccines. Whether parents follow the government-recommended schedule or an alternative schedule, should their child suffer harm after receiving a vaccination, they must first seek relief through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
On February 22, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a case involving the scope of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The Supreme Court considered whether 42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-22(b)(1) of the act precludes all vaccine design defect claims even if the vaccine's side effects were avoidable, or whether the vaccine manufacturer has to show on a case-by-case basis that the side effects could not have been avoided by some alternatively designed vaccine. Both parties had fundamentally differing interpretations of the statute's text and of Congress's intent behind the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This report provides an overview of the structure of the Vaccine Act and the relevant facts of the Bruesewitz case. It then examines the opinions of the lower court and the Supreme Court decision. Lastly, this report analyzes the impact of the decision both in terms of its potential effect on preemption jurisprudence and ongoing vaccine litigation. It also discusses past congressional legislation related to the Vaccine Injury Act.