Court Opinion

ID: 9439876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:47:57.423901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:38.159197
License: Public Domain

STAHL, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
While I concur in both the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion, I write separately to express my concern about the potential threat to the vaccine compensation program.
By virtue of the circumscribed scope of our authority and our inherent institutional- limitations, we in the judicial branch must abide by the presumptions prescribed by traditional principles of statutory construction. ' At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that, although compelled by law, the panel’s decision heightens the tension between the two competing purposes of the vaccine compensation program: holding down vaccine prices by cutting litigation costs while ensuring that the injured are adequately compensated. The defendant suggests that the cost-benefit calculus counsels a different’resolution of the conflict in the circumstances of cases such as the present oné. Specifically, the defendant argues that the increase in litigation costs associated with compensating a relatively small group of victims’ family members through state tort systems will place at risk a much larger group of unvaceinated individuals due to price sensitivity in the vaccine market. I consider this to be an issue of great importance, apparently overlooked at the time Congress drafted the statute. I respectfully suggest that this is an issue which Congress may wish to revisit.