From [HERE] Walgreen Co. is immune from a customer’s suit seeking damages for injuries she suffered in a fall after receiving her Covid-19 vaccine, a federal court in New Mexico said.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act provides an exclusive, administrative remedy for “any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure” such as a vaccine, the US District Court for the District of New Mexico said.

Suzanne Storment’s injuries directly related to Walgreens’ administration of the vaccine, and therefore weren’t actionable, the court said.

Storment received her first Covid-19 vaccination at a Walgreens store in Albuquerque in February 2021. There were no chairs to sit on while waiting to see if there were any untoward effects, so Storment went out to the parking lot to sit in her car.

Once in the parking lot, Storment felt dizzy and fell to the pavement, fracturing her elbow in multiple places. She sued Walgreens for damages.

Congress, in the PREP Act, “plainly provided immunity under both federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss” arising from the administration of the vaccine, the court said.

The PREP Act's cause of action permits suits only for “willful misconduct.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1). The Act defines “willful misconduct” as “an act or omission that is taken-(i) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; (ii) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and (iii) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” Id. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(A). The Act further specifies that willful misconduct “shall be construed as establishing a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.” Id. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B).

Storment’s injury “is unfortunate and certainly deserving of a remedy,” the court said. But it can’t be divorced from the administration of the vaccine. The PREP Act therefore applies and provides Walgreens with immunity, Judge Margaret I. Strickland said in Wednesday’s opinion.

Branch Law Firm represents Storment. Modrall Sperling represents Walgreens.

The case is Storment v. Walgreen Co., 2022 BL 261083, D.N.M., No. 1:21-cv-898, 7/27/22.