Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 59 PageID #: 448
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`MONROE DIVISION
`
`ALICIA SMITH, CAROLINA BOURQUE,
`EMMA BURKEY, CHRISTOPHER CODY
`FLINT, MICHELLE ZIMMERMAN, PhD,
`ERIN RHODES, and JESSICA KROGMEIER,
`LORIN JEPPSEN, and REACT19, INC
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`-vs.-
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED
`STATES HEALTH RESOURCES AND
`SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED
`STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
`HUMAN SERVICES, and JOHN DOES 1-3,
`
` Defendants.
`
` Case No. 3:23-cv-01425
`
` Judge Elizabeth E. Foote
`
`Magistrate Kayla D. McClusky
`
`SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 59 PageID #: 449
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case presents the heartbreaking plights of a cross-section of ordinary
`
`Americans who suffered and continue to suffer devastating and debilitating injuries which started
`
`within days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. While drugmakers reap billions of dollars in profits
`
`behind the impenetrable shield of legal immunity, Plaintiffs and their families are left with
`
`shattered lives, mounting medical bills, ongoing testing and treatment, and in some cases,
`
`permanent disabilities and death. The Court should be aware that for every story told in this case,
`
`there are thousands upon thousands more, equally heartbreaking and unjust.
`
`2.
`
`Instead of being able to sue the vaccine manufacturers for their injuries in a court
`
`of law, Plaintiffs have been forced by federal statute, the PREP Act, into the Countermeasures
`
`Injury Compensation Program (“CICP”). The CICP is akin to a black hole into which Plaintiffs
`
`submit a request for benefits, then wait an indeterminate amount of time for a decision, and for
`
`those who have received any decision, are ultimately wholly denied. Plaintiffs have no access to
`
`judicial review and are left to cope with their physical injuries and all resulting financial,
`
`emotional, and mental injuries.
`
`3.
`
`Carolina Bourque used to travel extensively in her role with the Louisiana
`
`Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Carolina loved to travel and hike, and she was always ready
`
`for an adventure. After receiving the Moderna vaccine, she cannot complete basic daily tasks,
`
`travel, or even drive.
`
`4.
`
`Emma Burkey, a healthy Nevada high school student, suffered blood clots in her
`
`brain and seizures less than two weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) vaccine.
`
`After three brain surgeries and thousands of hours of physical therapy, she struggles to walk, write,
`
`and care for herself. Her youth, as she knew it, is over. Her parents, who were on the verge of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 59 PageID #: 450
`
`retirement, now work around the clock beneath mounting debt, with the somber reality that Emma
`
`cannot possibly care for herself.
`
`5.
`
`Cody Flint, a husband, father, and pilot from Mississippi with over 10,000 flight
`
`hours, suffered immediate adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine, culminating in vertigo and
`
`ruptured inner ears two days later which nearly resulted in a deadly plane crash. Cody will never
`
`fly again because he cannot possibly afford all the treatment needed to repair his injuries. His
`
`family is “flat broke, swamped in debt, and has no real path forward.”
`
`6.
`
`Michelle Zimmerman, PhD, a highly educated K-12 worker in Washington,
`
`suffered severe adverse events after she received the J&J vaccine to comply with federal guidelines
`
`and to set a positive example for her students. She is now medically disabled, suffering from a
`
`severe brain injury, and unable to work, drive, or walk for more than a few minutes at a time. In
`
`Michelle’s words: “I have had everything that I love stripped from me.”
`
`7.
`
`Jessica Krogmeier, a mother, registered nurse, and respiratory therapist from Iowa,
`
`received the Pfizer vaccine to comply with requirements for her profession. She used to dream of
`
`furthering her education and advancing into nursing leadership. Now, she cannot work full time
`
`because of her ongoing symptoms. Jessica used to be hopeful about the future, but her life has
`
`dramatically changed: “I have no idea how it will feel day to day. I don’t even think I will live to
`
`see my kid graduate.”
`
`8.
`
`Despite their grievous injuries and the catastrophic effects on their lives, the only
`
`relief afforded to these Americans who “did the right thing” and got a COVID-19 vaccine is
`
`potential limited compensation under CICP. The federal law that created the CICP immunizes
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 59 PageID #: 451
`
`
`
`vaccine manufacturers from financial liability.1 In exchange, CICP is supposed to compensate
`
`those who are injured by “covered countermeasures” like the COVID-19 vaccine.2 The purported
`
`purpose of CICP is to “provid[e] timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to eligible
`
`individuals for covered injuries and severe adverse events directly caused by the administration or
`
`use of a covered countermeasure”3; however, as detailed herein, CICP is akin to a Potemkin
`
`village; it is an elaborate façade designed to hide an undesirable reality. CICP is the epitome of a
`
`kangaroo court or a star chamber — a proceeding that ignores recognized standards of law and
`
`justice, is grossly unfair, and comes to a predetermined conclusion.
`
`9.
`
`As a critical reminder: taxpayer funds were used to develop, test, purchase,
`
`distribute, and promote the vaccines. The federal government also mandated the vaccine through
`
`every avenue it legally could (and sometimes went beyond that until corrected by the judicial
`
`branch) or incentivized mandates by state and local governments or private employers and schools.
`
`
`
`1 The only exception is for “willful misconduct.” If a willful misconduct claim could be brought by the U.S.
`government under the Public Health Service Act or the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, then a plaintiff
`cannot bring that claim unless the U.S. government does so first. For other willful misconduct claims, a
`plaintiff must satisfy an extremely high burden of proof, especially against a vaccine manufacturer. Notably,
`willful misconduct first requires that the plaintiff seek compensation through the CICP and so the program
`is inescapable. If a plaintiff’s request is granted, he or she cannot sue for willful misconduct if he or she
`elects to receive that compensation. If the plaintiff chooses instead to file a lawsuit, injured persons may
`sue only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Such lawsuits must meet heightened
`standards for pleading and discovery and are subject to procedural provisions generally favorable to
`defendants. Injured persons must prove willful misconduct by clear and convincing evidence (a higher
`standard than in a typical civil case), and recovery for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering is
`limited. A plaintiff must show that a defendant acted (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. 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d(c)(1)(A),
`(c)(3), (e)(1).
`2 CICP covers numerous “countermeasures,” a category which includes more than COVID-19 vaccines.
`For purposes of the instant action, the only countermeasures applicable to Plaintiffs are the COVID-19
`vaccines.
`3 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6e(a) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 59 PageID #: 452
`
`10.
`
`The government consistently tested limits in a stated effort to protect Americans
`
`from COVID-19. Indeed, according to Justice Gorsuch, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
`
`Americans experienced “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this
`
`country.” Arizona v. Mayorkas, 143 S.Ct. 1312, 1314 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Executive
`
`officials issued emergency decrees, shuttering businesses, schools, and churches; surveilling cities
`
`to enforce compliance with social distancing requirements under threat of criminal penalties; and
`
`divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones that could be changed when challenged
`
`in the courtroom. Id. at 1314-15 (citing 10 cases of intrusions on civil liberties). The government
`
`painted the vaccine as the only way out of this crushing regime of restrictions on individual and
`
`civil rights that it imposed.
`
`11.
`
`Now, on the heels of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government refuses to
`
`compensate those who heeded the call and suffered the most severe vaccine injuries and, in doing
`
`so, denies them even the most basic of due process measures. The CICP as it functions now is
`
`fundamentally inconsistent with Congress’ intent. CICP claims are consistently lost, ignored,
`
`denied, or caught up in the years-long purgatory of government bureaucracy. The compensation,
`
`if any, is neither timely nor adequate. Perhaps the decisions are uniform, but only in the sense that
`
`claims uniformly get lost in a black hole for years or are uniformly denied.
`
`12.
`
`Congress could remedy the defects in CICP by amending the PREP Act so that it
`
`satisfied Americans’ constitutional rights and accomplishes the stated objective of providing
`
`timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to Plaintiffs and other individuals harmed by the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine. However, the legislation as currently drafted and implemented fails to provide
`
`the most basic protections required under the U.S. Constitution. The immunity to liability
`
`provisions within the PREP Act and the CICP are inextricably intertwined. As such, the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 59 PageID #: 453
`
`
`
`overarching rationale for providing liability protection to vaccine manufacturers under the PREP
`
`Act—that an alternative and adequate remedy for those injured by a COVID-19 vaccine
`
`exists—evaporates if the alternative and adequate remedy provided by Congress is itself
`
`unconstitutional. Accordingly, the PREP Act’s immunity protections for vaccine manufacturers
`
`cannot stand as there is no constitutional alternative provided to vaccine injured citizens.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order (i) declaring that those
`
`provisions of the PREP Act pertaining to CICP, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d
`
`and 247d-6e, are unconstitutional and (ii) enjoining the federal government, pursuant to the Fifth
`
`and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, from enforcing those provisions of the PREP
`
`Act that provide liability protection, unless the government provides the vaccine injured a
`
`reasonable alternative remedy with the following basic legal and constitutional protections:
`
`A. provide an adequate statute of limitations that applies to all COVID-19 vaccine
`injury claims;
`B. identify the name, title, and educational credentials of the individuals who are
`deciding COVID-19 vaccine injury claims;
`C. confirm that such decision-makers have no conflicts of interest and provide a
`process to challenge any particular decision-maker for conflicts of interest;
`D. identify any expert witnesses or consultants used by the government in making
`determinations;
`E. provide claimants with a reasonable opportunity to question witnesses, including
`experts, or review evidence used against claimants;
`F. provide claimants with a reasonable opportunity to question or obtain discovery
`from such experts, including producing copies of any expert reports;
`G. allow claimants the opportunity to present expert witnesses on their behalf;
`H. provide claimants with a reasonable opportunity to obtain discovery, including
`discovery from companies that manufactured or distributed the COVID-19
`vaccines that harmed them;
`I. produce copies of any records or documents used to decide COVID-19 vaccine
`injury claims;
`J. provide notice to claimants and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any
`decision;
`K. preserve the right of claimants to present claims for damages in court, before a civil
`jury, if a claimant elects to do so;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 7 of 59 PageID #: 454
`
`
`
`L. allow claimants to seek reasonable recovery for all damages suffered, including
`related to medical treatment, loss of income or earning potential, death, and/or pain,
`suffering, and emotional distress;
`M. provide that attorneys are eligible for attorneys’ fees and costs as long as the claim
`was submitted in good faith and with a reasonable basis;
`N. provide an appeal/judicial review of a COVID-19 vaccine injury decision in a court
`of law; and/or
`O. maintain a written record of any hearings or proceedings for judicial review.
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`14.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331, 1343.
`
`15.
`
`This action arises under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments to the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Carolina Bourque is and at all relevant times has been a citizen and
`
`domiciliary of the State of Louisiana, residing in Youngsville, LA.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Emma Burkey is and at all relevant times has been a citizen and
`
`domiciliary of the State of Nevada, residing in Henderson, NV.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Christopher Cody Flint is and at all relevant times has been a citizen and
`
`domiciliary of the State of Mississippi, residing in Cleveland, MS.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Michelle Zimmerman is and at all relevant times has been a citizen and
`
`domiciliary of the State of Washington, residing in Seattle, WA.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Jessica Krogmeier is and at all relevant times has been a citizen and
`
`domiciliary of the State of Iowa, residing in Donnellson, IA.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 59 PageID #: 455
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`21.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is a
`
`cabinet-level executive branch department within the United States Federal Government.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant United States Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”)
`
`is an Operating Division of HHS. HRSA administers the Countermeasures Injury Compensation
`
`Program (“CICP”), at issue in this suit.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant John Does 1-3 (collectively, “John Does”) are individuals charged with
`
`supervising, managing, directing, or operating CICP. As set forth below, various Plaintiffs have
`
`requested identification of John Does, but CICP, HHS, and/or HRSA have not disclosed their
`
`identities to date.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Carolina Bourque
`
`24.
`
`In 2021, Carolina had been working as a biologist at the Louisiana Department of
`
`Wildlife and Fisheries for 13 years. In her role as an oyster manager biologist, she traveled
`
`extensively, participated in conferences and meetings nationwide, and was responsible for
`
`managing and protecting Louisiana’s oyster natural resources, including management of
`
`approximately 1.7 million acres of public oyster areas. Although Carolina managed seasonal
`
`allergies, she was in good overall health. She enjoyed a full and active life.
`
`25.
`
`Everything
`
`changed
`
`on March
`
`17,
`
`2021, when Carolina
`
`received
`
`a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and immediately suffered an anaphylactic-type reaction, with a
`
`rash on her arm and torso, tachycardia, dizziness, shortness of breath, and intense gastrointestinal
`
`pains that would last for months. She lost her hearing and had veins that popped on the inside of
`
`her arm within two hours after receiving the vaccine.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 59 PageID #: 456
`
`
`
`26.
`
`On March 23, 2021, when her ongoing medical issues had not improved, Carolina
`
`visited her primary care physician. Her physician took blood work, completed an ultrasound of
`
`Carolina’s abdominal area, and referred her to a gastroenterologist. Within a few weeks, she also
`
`visited an ear, nose, and throat (“ENT”) specialist and a pain management doctor. Doctors
`
`performed an MRI and multiple other tests.
`
`27.
`
`On June 17, 2021, at the recommendation of her physicians, Carolina proceeded
`
`with a second COVID-19 shot. She was immediately dizzy and stayed at the pharmacy for 30
`
`minutes so she would not faint. By the second day, Carolina could not get out of bed. Her leg and
`
`arms were weak, and she developed facial paralysis/Bell’s palsy and migraines. Carolina became
`
`dizzy and confused. She could barely perform work at her computer because her eyesight became
`
`blurry, preventing her from reading the words on the screen.
`
`28.
`
`Carolina’s primary care physician initially identified an adverse vaccine reaction
`
`to the COVID-19 vaccine, but he was unwilling to make a report to the Vaccine Adverse Event
`
`Reporting System (“VAERS”). Carolina filed a VAERS report herself (ID #1502325) on July 26,
`
`2021. She later filed an updated VAERS report (ID #1951207) on December 15, 2021. A true and
`
`accurate copy of the December 15, 2021 VAERS report is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`29.
`
`After multiple new doctor visits, including a neurologist, rheumatologist, and an
`
`ENT specialist, Carolina was ultimately diagnosed with dysautonomia/autonomic dysfunction,
`
`small fiber neuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, mast cell activation syndrome, hemiplegic
`
`migraines, vestibular migraines, and chronic fatigue syndrome, among other diagnoses. Even after
`
`27 months, Carolina continues to receive new diagnoses. Doctors have been baffled by her vast
`
`array of symptoms. As of the date of this Complaint, Carolina continues to search for a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 10 of 59 PageID #: 457
`
`
`
`knowledgeable neurologist who can develop a better treatment plan, and she continues to get
`
`referrals to other specialists to see who can help her.
`
`30.
`
`Carolina is unable to complete basic tasks, including driving more than a 15-
`
`minute radius, speaking in public, or attending any event with loud noises or lights. She suffers
`
`from brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness on a daily basis. Carolina also deals with inflammation and
`
`painful sensations that vary between shocking pains to tingling and numbness throughout her body.
`
`31.
`
`Carolina’s injuries forced her to leave her position as an oyster manager to
`
`become a low-level biologist, with lower pay, more basic daily tasks, and minimal public contact,
`
`phone calls, and travel. Carolina now works from home three days a week at a computer station,
`
`and once a week she rides to work with her husband because she often cannot drive without getting
`
`confused and dizzy. Carolina takes daily breaks and, most weeks, she cannot fulfill her basic 40-
`
`hour work schedule.
`
`32.
`
`Since her injury, Carolina has spent over $30,000 on medical expenses, including
`
`ongoing testing and treatment. Despite visits to numerous specialists, special diets, and
`
`supplements, Carolina has yet to find effective treatments to manage her vaccine injuries. She sees
`
`no pathway to improvement going forward.
`
`33.
`
`In March 2022, Carolina made a claim with the CICP before the expiration of her
`
`one-year deadline. Carolina directed her physicians to submit medical records, both in paper and
`
`online via the Injury Compensation electronic submission website, associating her new symptoms
`
`and diagnoses to a vaccine reaction. Almost a year later, CICP representatives continued to claim
`
`that they did not have any of her records. They could provide no guidance regarding the timeline
`
`for determining claims nor identify who would be reviewing and deciding claims. An excerpt of a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 11 of 59 PageID #: 458
`
`
`
`transcribed conversation Carolina had with CICP on February 8, 2023, more than a year after
`
`submitting her request for benefits, follows:
`
`0:03:33 Carolina Bourque
`So you have received the medical records, correct?
`
`0:03:38 CICP Representative (Juan)
`No, they have not. They either have not or they have not updated.
`
`0:03:42 Carolina Bourque
`Because I know for sure two doctors have submitted the medical records. So who decides
`to upload, you know, the medical records or what’s the timeline on that? It was submitted
`last year.
`
`0:03:57 CICP Representative (Juan)
`So unfortunately, we don’t really have a time frame. But what I can do is I can get your
`information down, have the department take a look into it, give you a call back and confirm
`with you which documents were received or if they need any additional documentation.
`
`0:04:13 Carolina Bourque
`…[W]ho decides, you know, on the documentation, like, who do you guys have like, a
`panel to review the documentation or or how does it work?
`
`0:04:26 CICP Representative (Juan)
`The documentation is reviewed by medical staff team members. They, they go ahead and
`review those records and, and make that decision.
`
`0:04:34 Carolina Bourque
`OK. And this medical team like, where are they? You know, are they hired by you guys,
`specifically, contractors? Are they like consultants or something?
`
`0:04:52 CICP Representative (Juan)
`I’m, I’m not sure. I think the credentials are in the medical field, so they’re, they’re most
`likely doctors. From what I’m being told, that’s, that’s who essentially reviews those
`records. It’s not someone who isn’t qualified, and that’s what I can assure you, as, as that
`they’ve informed us that they are accredited and they are knowledgeable in that field. So
`when they are reviewing the medical records you can rest assured it’s someone that’s
`qualified to review them.
`
`0:05:25 Carolina Bourque
`OK, now what happens if there’s more than 240 days passed and there’s no determination,
`especially for example, in my case, I submitted March of last year and it’s close to 365
`days. So what, what happens?
`
`0:05:44 CICP Representative (Juan)
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 12 of 59 PageID #: 459
`
`
`
`So it’s, it’s not uncommon that it’s been this long. We’ve had individuals as well in
`your situation. What we do is we just escalate the matter and have the department contact
`you directly and kind of, like, reassure you that they, they still have your paperwork. In
`many cases ma’am, I'm going to be quite honest with you the medical records that I’ve
`sent, they are provided. It’s just more so on the department to update that information,
`There, I believe there may be a big backlog and not giving any, any information in regards
`to that, but it’s it’s, it’s better if we just have them contact you.
`
`A true and accurate copy of a recording of Carolina’s first telephone call to CICP on February 8,
`
`2023 is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`34.
`
`Carolina called CICP a second time and spoke with a second CICP representative,
`
`who again could provide no timeframe for claim determination:
`
`0:02:15 CICP Representative (Jennifer)
`[CICP] does not give updates online. You receive letters throughout the process. It is a
`delayed process. So it does take time to receive letters from the CICP.
`
`0:02:25 Carolina Bourque
`So it takes time. Like how long? What’s the usual time for revision for each application? I
`submitted mine last year.
`
`0:02:35 CICP Representative (Jennifer)
`There’s no time frame, how long it can take.
`
`0:02:38 Carolina Bourque
`Oh, there’s no time frame.
`
`0:00:2:40 CICP Representative (Jennifer)
`No ma’am.
`
` true and accurate copy of a recording of Carolina’s second telephone call to CICP on February
`
` A
`
`8, 2023 is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`35. More than a year and a half after submitting her claim, Carolina has received no
`
`determination or updates from CICP.
`
`B.
`
`Emma Burkey
`
`36.
`
`Emma Burkey was a healthy 18-year-old senior attending high school in Nevada.
`
`By the spring of 2021, Emma had a 4.3 GPA, attended classes online, had a black belt in karate,
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 13 of 59 PageID #: 460
`
`
`
`and juggled multiple part-time jobs. Emma planned to attend UNLV in the fall. Although she was
`
`undecided in her major, Emma always knew that her career path would involve children.
`
`37.
`
`On March 20, 2021, Emma received the J&J COVID-19 vaccine because she
`
`believed it would help keep the children around her safe. Emma trusted J&J because it is known
`
`as a “baby [products] company.”
`
`38.
`
`For a week and a half following her vaccination, Emma experienced intermittent
`
`nausea, increased heart rate, and headaches. Emma was told to expect these side effects, so she
`
`was not immediately concerned.
`
`39.
`
`On March 31, 2021, Emma returned to work with her mother. She left work early
`
`because of migraine headaches. On April 1, 2021, Emma went to work again. She experienced
`
`severe headaches, but she finished the day and went to bed early that evening.
`
`40.
`
`Emma woke early in the morning on April 2, vomited in bed, and had her first
`
`seizure, 11 days after her vaccination.
`
`41.
`
`Emma was immediately transported by ambulance to the emergency room at Saint
`
`Rose Dominican Hospital in Las Vegas. Scans revealed that Emma had a small brain bleed, which
`
`progressively worsened, as she developed Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis due to blood
`
`clotting in her brain. Her brain hemorrhaged and she began seizing constantly, with rapid
`
`temperature and heart rate increases. By the end of the day on April 2, 2021, Emma was no longer
`
`responsive.
`
`42.
`
`Emma’s infectious disease doctor, Dr. Brian Lipman, immediately suspected that
`
`Emma was suffering an adverse reaction to the J&J vaccine because Emma’s symptoms mirrored
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 14 of 59 PageID #: 461
`
`
`
`adverse events associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.4 Doctors at Saint Rose began
`
`calling and emailing the CDC and J&J requesting guidance. They received no response from either
`
`the health agency or the pharmaceutical company over the weekend.
`
`43.
`
`By the early hours of April 3, 2021, Emma’s parents made the difficult decision to
`
`allow doctors to place Emma in a medically induced coma and intubate her.
`
`44.
`
`The next day, April 4, doctors informed Emma’s parents that their daughter would
`
`likely die if they did not perform brain surgery to open the clots in her brain. They proceeded with
`
`surgery. Unfortunately, a post-surgery MRI showed more clots filling inside Emma’s brain.
`
`Doctors met with Emma’s parents again and determined they needed to perform a second brain
`
`surgery.
`
`45.
`
`Emma endured a second brain surgery on April 5, 2021. She did not wake up. Brain
`
`scans showed no blood flow through the top of Emma’s head after the surgery. The clots in
`
`Emma’s brain had become so severe that physicians believed she would remain in a persistent
`
`vegetative state for the rest of her life.
`
`46.
`
`Doctors at Saint Rose had exhausted all options. They continued to request
`
`guidance from the federal government and J&J. Again, no response was provided. Hospital leaders
`
`recommended that they search nationwide for another hospital that could help.
`
`47.
`
`On April 6, 2021, Emma was transferred to the Neurologic Intensive Care Unit at
`
`Loma Linda University Hospital in California. Two days later, physicians at Loma Linda
`
`performed a third brain surgery on Emma.
`
`
`
`4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy9qBxGbGPw at 1:25 (local news interview with Emma’s doctor,
`Dr. Lipman, speaking about her case).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 15 of 59 PageID #: 462
`
`
`
`48.
`
`On April 9, 2021, Emma began to show signs that she was slowly regaining
`
`consciousness.
`
`49.
`
`Emma’s story gained national attention in April 2021, when the FDA paused the
`
`rollout of the J&J vaccine because Emma and five other women between the ages of 18 and 48
`
`suffered the same catastrophic reaction.5 As of January 2022, the CDC reported that eight people
`
`(six women, two men) had died from similar conditions shortly after receiving the J&J COVID-
`
`19 shot.6
`
`50.
`
`In the days and weeks that followed, Emma began taking small steps that previewed
`
`the long journey ahead. On April 15, Emma first awoke from her coma,7 but was left in a
`
`quadriplegic state and was constantly vomiting due to her inability to digest food. Emma
`
`eventually had her feeding tube removed on May 27, 2021.
`
`51.
`
`After hundreds of hours of therapy in the hospital, Emma was discharged in August
`
`2021. Her life now consists of neurologic restorative therapy five days per week, from 9 am until
`
`3 pm. Medical professionals work with Emma every day to re-map areas of her brain that have
`
`been damaged. Emma continues to fight to regain motor function, including the ability to walk,
`
`write, and care for her own personal hygiene.
`
`52.
`
`In addition to the obvious trauma Emma’s family has been through in watching
`
`their daughter suffer and wonder if she would live and, if so, with what quality of life, Emma’s
`
`
`
`5 FDA, Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine (Apr. 13, 2021),
`available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/joint-cdc-and-fda-statement-johnson-
`johnson-covid-19-vaccine.
`6 CDC, Use of the Jannsen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Updated Interim Recommendations
`from
`the Advisory Committee on
`Immunization Practices
`(Jan. 21, 2022), available at:
`https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7103a4.htm.
`7 See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M2iiUxnEW3M.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 16 of 59 PageID #: 463
`
`
`
`family has faced increased insurance premiums because of the ongoing medical expenses. The first
`
`bill they received was for $650,000 and they have continued since then.
`
`53.
`
`Emma’s family had to purchase a new home to accommodate her condition. They
`
`moved from the family home that was almost fully paid off and into a one-story home with an
`
`open floorplan that is easier for Emma to navigate. Emma’s family now has a $520,000 mortgage,
`
`having bought their home at the peak of the market, which they did not anticipate as they
`
`approached retirement age. Emma’s family also purchased and repaired a wheelchair-accessible
`
`van, at an estimated cost of $60,000. Because of the mounting repairs on the van, Emma’s family
`
`purchased another used wheelchair van for over $49,000. Emma’s dad drives her to and from
`
`physical therapy, a 36-mile round trip, two times a day (72 miles per day), five days per week,
`
`spending hundreds of dollars on gas. They also rented a home while searching for a new home and
`
`spent thousands of dollars while at Loma Linda.
`
`54.
`
`Emma submitted a claim to CICP over two years ago, in November 2021. In the
`
`most recent call, CICP representatives provided no timeline for deciding her claim, stating
`
`repeatedly and coldly that it would be a “hot minute” until any decision was made.
`
`C.
`
`Cody Flint
`
`55.
`
`Cody Flint is a husband, father of two boys and an experienced pilot from
`
`Mississippi with over 10,000 flight hours. For 15 years, he was employed as an agricultural crop-
`
`dusting pilot. As a requirement of his position, Cody was required by law to obtain annual Federal
`
`Aviation Administration (“FAA”) physicals to keep his pilot license current. He has done so every
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01425-EEF-KDM Document 35 Filed 12/21/23 Page 17 of 59 PageID #: 464
`
`
`
`year since he was 17 years old. Cody’s annual physicals, including his last FAA flight physical in
`
`January 2021, showed he was in excellent health, with no pre-existing conditions.
`
`56.
`
`On February 1, 2021, only twelve days after his most recent FAA flight physical,
`
`Cody received his first COVID-19 Pfizer vaccination due to extreme pressure to do so from his
`
`employer. Within 30 minutes, he developed a severe headache which moved down the back of his
`
`neck and became a burning sensation at the base of his skull. Cody became dizzy, and his eyes
`
`could not focus properly.
`
`57.
`
`On February 3, 2021, Cody resumed flying after observing the 48 hour no-fly rule
`
`required of pilots after COVID-19 vaccination. Immediately after takeoff on this crop-dusting
`
`flight (for wh