Medical professionals nationwide are taking a stand against the recent actions of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., filing a lawsuit to challenge decisions they argue jeopardize public health and undermine established vaccine protocols.
The complaint, lodged by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, along with individual medical professionals, seeks to reverse a directive that removed the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women from the CDC-recommended immunization schedules.
Unjustified Actions Undermine Public Trust
On May 27, 2025, Secretary Kennedy announced his directive via social media, a move that starkly contradicts his prior sworn testimony before Congress, where he stated his opinions on vaccines were "irrelevant" and people should not take medical advice from him. This directive, dated May 19, 2025, is seen by plaintiffs as a breach of his promise not to hinder vaccine access.
The lawsuit highlights a pattern of actions by the Secretary to dismantle the nation's vaccine infrastructure. This includes:
- Dismissal of Expert Advisors: The Secretary "totally reconstituted" the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the bedrock of U.S. vaccine policy for over 60 years, by terminating all 17 existing members, who reportedly learned of their dismissal through a news column.
- Appointment of Vaccine Skeptics: Key positions within HHS agencies, such as the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, have been filled by individuals known for their skepticism about vaccines and mandates.
- Overruling Scientific Consensus: The former Director of CBER, Peter Marks, resigned, stating that undermining confidence in established vaccines is "irresponsible, detrimental to public health, and a clear danger to our nation’s health, safety, and security" and that the Secretary desired "subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies". His replacement subsequently overruled FDA staff recommendations for new COVID-19 vaccine approvals. The Secretary also directed a study on vaccine-autism links, despite extensive evidence negating such a connection.
Medical Professionals Voice Concerns
The Secretary's directive has caused significant alarm among medical professionals. Jane Doe, a pregnant physician, fears for her and her unborn child's health due to new barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine. Organizations report that the directive forces their members into an "ethical dilemma," compromising their ability to provide evidence-based, medically sound recommendations. Patients are reportedly refusing vaccinations for their children, and some pharmacies are denying access to pregnant patients, citing confusion or perceived legal risks. The "shared decision-making" emphasis from the CDC has also led to difficulties in vaccine clinics, bulk ordering, and reimbursement.
Arbitrary and Capricious Actions
The lawsuit asserts that the Secretary's directive is an "arbitrary and capricious" final agency action, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This legal claim is based on the argument that an agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it relies on irrelevant factors, fails to consider important aspects of a problem, or offers explanations contrary to evidence. The plaintiffs argue the Secretary's actions meet this definition by:
- Contradicting his own sworn testimony about his lack of medical authority.
- Overruling the FDA's policy on COVID-19 risk in pregnant individuals without explanation.
- Failing to provide scientific evidence or justification for the directive.
Impact on Workers' Compensation Programs
The provided complaint does not contain specific information regarding the direct impact of the Secretary's actions on workers ' compensation programs across the country. However, the outcome of this litigation will have a direct impact on first responders, medical personnel, and workers nationwide. Infectious diseases in the workplace increase the risk of contagion and infection, thereby leading to occupational exposure and resulting disease.
Key Takeaways and Remedies Sought
The primary objective of the lawsuit is to vacate the "Secretarial Directive." The plaintiffs argue they are justified in their position that the Trump administration's actions were arbitrary and capricious due to the disregard for scientific consensus, the undermining of established public health infrastructure, and the potential for irreparable harm to vulnerable populations.
Entire Docket Court Listner
ORDER NOW
....
*Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon Gelman 1.973.696.7900
jon@gelmans.com has represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational illnesses and diseases.
Blog: Workers' Compensation
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters
Mastodon:@gelman@mstdn.social
Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social
© 2025 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved.
Attorney Advertising
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
