The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on H545 on Jan. 16, 2026, as witnesses urged caution about language that would provide liability protection to medical providers for vaccine‑related adverse events and asked the committee to require standardized informed‑consent documentation if it moves forward.

Allison Despacathy, a Danville resident, clinical nutritionist and co‑director of Health Choice Vermont, told the committee she supports the Department of Health's effort to procure vaccines and expand insurance coverage but raised concerns about a provision she said appears to grant a state liability shield to providers. "If that liability shield is gonna be there, then shouldn't they also be, mandated to provide informed consent?" Despacathy asked during her testimony.

Despacathy described federal background she said is relevant to the measure, including the 1986 federal law that established liability protections and the creation of the federal vaccine adverse‑event reporting system. She told the committee that "over $5,000,000,000 have been paid out" through federal compensation programs for vaccine adverse events and cited a 2015 case in which she said a Vermont child, Kaylin Matin, received $250,000 from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

She also recommended a separate bill, H69, that would direct the Department of Health to review federal VAERS data and identify Vermont‑relevant reports of injuries or deaths, so the state could look for possible safety signals. "If the state is going to try to take that on, they should also be simultaneously taking that responsibility on as well," she told the committee.

Committee members pressed Despacathy on specifics. One member asked whether other states had moved on similar liability shields; Despacathy pointed to ongoing litigation and said professional groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have been active in related disputes. Despacathy said states are "just starting to see this type of legislation come through" and that congressional bills had been introduced to change federal liability rules.

Adam Nick Krasen, speaking for the Vermont injury bar and the Nick Krasen Group on behalf of his client list including "Vermont Associates Super Justice, the trial lawyers," told the committee that federal law preempts many product‑liability claims and that most claims over vaccine products are handled through federal mechanisms. "The federal government has preempted the space," Krasen said, urging careful drafting of any immunity language so it does not inadvertently shield negligence in clinical practice.

Chair Lalon clarified the committee's reading of the bill: the immunity language under consideration would apply to medical providers, not to vaccine manufacturers. "The bill is just providing immunity to the medical professionals who are providing the or prescription and such. It doesn't provide immunity to manufacturers," the chair said during the hearing, while noting that federal preemption could affect the analysis in ways the committee must consider.

Both witnesses urged the committee to consider how the state would identify and monitor adverse events if it adopted its own recommended schedule differing from federal guidance. Despacathy suggested the state could require a signed acknowledgment or another standardized step to document that patients received informed consent, and offered to provide additional witnesses and legal references to the committee.

The Judiciary Committee concluded the hearing without taking a final vote on H545. Chair Lalon said the committee would continue discussions with the Human Services Committee about informed‑consent issues and reconvene later to take up other items on the agenda.