ȱ
Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ
˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
Ž—›¢ȱ˜‘Ž—ȱ
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ˜›—Ž¢ȱ
Š—ŽœœŠȱ ǯȱž››˜ œȱ
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ˜›—Ž¢ȱ
Œ˜‹Ž›ȱŞǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ
ŘŘřŘŝȱ
ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
Division C of P.L. 109-148 (2005), 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e, limits liability with respect to
pandemic flu and other public health countermeasures. Specifically, upon a declaration by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services of a public health emergency or the credible risk of such
emergency, Division C would, with respect to a “covered countermeasure,” eliminate liability,
with one exception, for the United States, and for manufacturers, distributors, program planners,
persons who prescribe, administer or dispense the countermeasure, and employees of any of the
above. The Secretary has issued two declarations. First, on January 26, 2007, the Secretary
declared that there is a “credible risk that the spread of avian influenza and resulting disease could
in the future constitute a public health emergency.” Second, on October 1, 2008, the Secretary
“declared an emergency justifying the authorization of emergency use of doxycycline hyclate
tablets accompanied by emergency use information subject to the terms of any authorization
issued by the Food and Drug Commissioner.” The exception to immunity from liability is that a
defendant who engaged in willful misconduct would be subject to liability under a new federal
cause of action, though not under state tort law. Division C’s limitation on liability is a more
severe restriction on victims’ ability to recover than exists in most federal tort reform statutes.
However, victims could, in lieu of suing, accept payment under a new “Covered Countermeasure
Process Fund,” if Congress appropriates money for this fund.


˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
˜—Ž—œȱ
Immunity from Liability.................................................................................................................. 1
New Federal Cause of Action.......................................................................................................... 2
Covered Countermeasure Process Fund.......................................................................................... 4
Comparison with Existing Federal Tort Reform Statutes................................................................ 4

˜—ŠŒœȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 5

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
––ž—’¢ȱ›˜–ȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ
This report analyzes Division C of the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations, P.L. 109-148, which was signed into law on December 30, 2005, and which
limits liability with respect to pandemic flu and other public health countermeasures. Division C,
which is titled the “Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act,” (PREP Act) created §
319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act, which provides that, except in one circumstance
(discussed below under “New Federal Cause of Action”), a “covered person” would be immune
from suit and liability for “all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting
from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a
declaration ... has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.” The declaration referred to is
a declaration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) of a public health emergency
or the credible risk of such emergency.
On January 26, 2007, Secretary Michael O. Leavitt made the first such declaration “to provide
targeted liability protections for pandemic countermeasures based on a credible risk that an avian
influenza virus spreads and evolves into a strain capable of causing a pandemic of human
influenza.”1 Immunity from liability is only in effect for present and “any future U.S. Government
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for pandemic countermeasure influenza A (H5N1)
vaccine used and administered in accordance with this declaration.”2
On October 1, 2008, the Secretary made a second declaration, a determination that there is “an
emergency justifying the authorization of emergency use of doxycycline hyclate tablets
accompanied by emergency use information subject to the terms of any authorization issued by
the Food and Drug Commissioner.”3 Immunity from liability is in effect for (1) 22 federal
contracts listed in an appendix to the declaration, as well as future federal contracts, and present
or future “cooperative agreements, grants, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding
involving countermeasures that are used and administered in accordance with this declaration,”
and (2) “activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the
Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered
Countermeasure following a declaration of emergency.”4 The declaration limits immunity for
governmental program planners “to the extent they obtain Covered Countermeasures through
voluntary means of distribution,” but the declaration states that “[f]or all other covered persons,
including other program planners, the immunity ... shall ... be in effect pursuant to any means of
distribution.”5
Division C defines a “covered person” to include the United States and a (i) manufacturer, (ii)
distributor, (iii) program planner, (iv) qualified person who prescribed, administered, or dispensed

1 Pandemic Countermeasures; Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 72 Fed. Reg.
4710 (Feb. 1, 2007).
2 Id. The Secretary subsequently issued a notice providing that claims under the Covered Countermeasure Process Fund
(see pp. 4-5, infra), for injuries caused by this vaccine, must be filed within one year from the time the claimant
received the vaccine, even though no funds have been appropriated to provide compensation. 72 Fed. Reg. 72740 (Dec.
21, 2007).
3 Determination and Declaration Regarding Emergency Use of Doxycycline Hyclate Tablets Accompanied by
Emergency Use Information, 73 Fed. Reg. 58242 (Oct. 6, 2008).
4 Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 58239, 58240 (Oct. 6, 2008).
5 73 Fed. Reg. 58240 (emphasis added).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
a covered countermeasure, or (v) official, agent, or employee of (i) through (iv). Under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, officials, agents, and employees of the United States are already immune
from tort liability.6
Immunity is granted “to any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to
or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure, including a causal relationship with the
design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution,
formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing,
administration, or use of such countermeasure.”
A “covered countermeasure” includes (A) “a qualified pandemic or epidemic product,” (B) “a
security countermeasure,” or (C) a drug, biological product, or device that is authorized for
emergency use in accordance with section 564 of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA). Each of the terms in (A), (B), and (C) is itself defined in Division C as follows.
(A) “Qualified pandemic or epidemic product” is defined as a drug, biological product, or device,
as these three terms are defined in the FDCA, with the additional limitation that all three terms
apply only to “a product manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or
procured ... to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic,” or “a serious or
life-threatening disease or condition caused by [such] a product”—but only if such a product
meets one of three other qualifications under the FDCA.
(B) “Security countermeasure” is defined in Division C as it is defined in § 319F-2(c)(1)(B) of
the Public Health Service Act,7 as a drug, biological product, or device (as those terms are defined
in the FDCA) that the Secretary of HHS approves as necessary to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or
treat harm from any biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent.8
(C) “Drug,” “biological product,” and “device” are all defined by the FDCA.
Ž ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱŠžœŽȱ˜ȱŒ’˜—ȱ
The single circumstance in which Division C allows a covered person to be held liable is when a
“death or serious physical injury” was caused by the “willful misconduct” of a covered person.
Division C 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.” In addition, the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Attorney
General, “shall promulgate regulations ... that further restrict the scope of actions or omissions by
a covered person that may qualify as ‘willful misconduct.’” Furthermore, “the plaintiff shall have
the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct by each covered
person sued and that such willful misconduct caused the death or serious physical injury.” The
“clear and convincing” standard is higher than the usual burden of proof in civil cases, which is
proof by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Finally, if an act or omission by a manufacturer or

6 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(b)(1), 2671.
7 Section 319F-2 was enacted by the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, P.L. 108-276, § 3, and is codified at 42 U.S.C. §
247d-6b.
8 This is a summary of a more complex definition.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
distributor is subject to regulation by Division C or by the FDCA, then such act or omission shall
not constitute willful misconduct if neither the Secretary of HHS nor the Attorney General has
initiated an enforcement action with respect to the act or omission, or if such an enforcement
action has been initiated and the enforcement action has been terminated or finally resolved
without a specified penalty imposed on the covered person.
The proceeding in which an injured party may seek to prove that a covered person had engaged in
willful misconduct is a new federal cause of action that Division C created; suits under state tort
law are prohibited. Subsection (d) of the new § 319F-3 provides: “For purposes of section
2679(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, such a cause of action is not an action brought for
violation of a statute of the United States under which an action against an individual is otherwise
authorized.” This apparently means that the new federal cause of action may not be brought
against a federal employee.9
Division C provides that suits under the new federal cause of action may be brought only in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and that such court, with exceptions noted below,
shall apply the substantive law, including choice of law principles, of the state in which the
alleged willful misconduct occurred. The reference to “choice of law principles” means that the
court will apply the law of the state in which the alleged willful misconduct occurred, but, if that
state’s law provides that a different state’s law should apply, then the court will apply the other
state’s law.10
Although federal district court cases are usually heard by a single judge, cases under Division C’s
new federal cause of action will be “assigned initially to a panel of three judges. Such panel shall
have jurisdiction over such action for purposes of considering motions to dismiss, motions for
summary judgment, and matters related thereto. If such panel has denied such motions, or if the
time for filing such motions has expired, such panel shall refer the action to the chief judge for
assignment for further proceedings, including any trial.” This suggests that the panel’s jurisdiction
is limited to pretrial motions, and that a single judge will run the trial, including ruling on motions
to dismiss and motions for summary judgment that were made after the trial began.
Under the new federal cause of action, certain matters are not governed by state law. Damage
awards will be reduced by the amount of collateral source benefits, with “collateral source
benefits” defined to include amounts the plaintiff is entitled to receive from any governmental
program, workers’ compensation law, health or disability insurance, and the like. Collateral
sources will have no right of subrogation, which means that they could not recover, out of the
damages the plaintiff recovers in a lawsuit brought under the new federal cause of action, benefits
that they had paid the plaintiff.
Under the new federal cause of action, noneconomic damages, which are damages for pain and
suffering and other non-monetary losses, “may be awarded only in an amount directly
proportional to the percentage of responsibility of a defendant for harm to the plaintiff.” This

9 Strictly speaking, § 2679(b)(2)(B) does not authorize actions against federal employees, but provides that §
2679(b)(1), which gives federal employees immunity from suits under state tort law, shall not apply to actions brought
under federal statutes. It is such federal statutes, not § 2679(b)(2)(B), that authorize actions against federal employees.
10 The reason that Division C created a federal cause of action and has federal courts apply state law, rather than simply
requiring state causes of action to be brought in federal court, may be that it might have been unconstitutional to allow
state causes of action between plaintiffs and defendants from the same state to be brought in federal court. See, In re
TMI Litigation Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832, 848-851 (3d Cir. 1991).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
means that, if two defendants are found liable for willful misconduct, then they will not be jointly
and severally liable for noneconomic damages, which means that they will not each be liable for
the full amount of the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages. If, for example, one of the two
defendants was 25% responsible for the harm and the other was 75% responsible for the harm,
then the plaintiff may recover no more than 25% of his noneconomic damages from the first,
even if the second is insolvent. With respect to economic damages, however, the plaintiff may
recover up to 100% from either liable party, if the relevant state law provides for joint and several
liability.
Under the new federal cause of action, Rule 11 sanctions against attorneys, law firms, or parties,
for filing frivolous claims or defenses or filing papers for improper purposes, are mandatory. Rule
11 currently makes sanctions discretionary on the part of the court.
˜ŸŽ›Žȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ›˜ŒŽœœȱž—ȱ
Division C also created a new section 319F-4 of the Public Health Service Act which, upon
issuance by the Secretary of the declaration referred to in the first paragraph of this report, would
establish in the Treasury the “Covered Countermeasure Process Fund.” “[T]he Secretary shall,
after amounts have by law been provided for the Fund under subsection (a)11 provide
compensation to an eligible individual for a covered injury [i.e., serious physical injury or death]
directly caused by the administration or use of a covered countermeasure pursuant to such
declaration.”12 Despite the “shall” quoted in the previous sentence, an eligible “individual has an
election to accept the compensation or to bring an action under” the new federal cause of action,
but may not do both. Compensation under this fund would be in the same amount as is prescribed
by sections 264, 265, and 266 of the Public Service Health Act for persons injured as a result of
the administration of certain countermeasures against smallpox.13 These three sections provide,
respectively, medical benefits, compensation for lost employment income, and death benefits, but
do not provide damages for pain and suffering.
˜–™Š›’œ˜—ȱ ’‘ȱ¡’œ’—ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ˜›ȱŽ˜›–ȱ
ŠžŽœȱ
Congress has enacted other tort reform statutes to limit liability under state law.14 The rest of this
report describes the broad categories into which these statutes may be placed, so that Division C
can be compared with them. Some federal statutes have eliminated tort liability with no
exceptions, and without providing an alternative means of compensation. Other federal statutes
have eliminated tort liability for ordinary negligence but not for gross negligence or willful

11 The reference to subsection (a) seems unclear because subsection (a) provides for the establishment of the fund, not
for its funding. Perhaps the reference was meant to be “for the Fund [established] under subsection (a).”
12 Thus, the Covered Countermeasure Process Fund will not provide compensation unless Congress enacts a separate
statute that appropriates money for it.
13 Sections 264, 265, and 266 were enacted by the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003, P.L. 108-20
(2003), and are codified, respectively, at 42 U.S.C. § 239c, 239d, and 239e.
14 These statutes are listed in, and briefly summarized in the appendix to, CRS Report 95-797, Federal Tort Reform
Legislation: Constitutionality and Summaries of Selected Statutes
, by Henry Cohen and Vanessa K. Burrows.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

Š—Ž–’Œȱ•žȱŠ—ȱŽ’ŒŠ•ȱ’˜ŽŽ—œŽȱ˜ž—Ž›–ŽŠœž›Žȱ’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’–’Š’˜—ȱ
ȱ
misconduct. Division C eliminated tort liability except for willful misconduct, and therefore falls
in between these two categories. In addition, Division C would allow injured persons to recover
compensation from the Covered Countermeasure Process Fund, if Congress appropriates money
for it.
More than 50 federal statutes provide total immunity to particular private parties, but make the
U.S. government liable, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, in their stead.15 There are situations,
however, in which the U.S. government may not be held liable under the FTCA, and, in those
situations, victims may be left without a remedy.16 Even when the United States may be held
liable under the FTCA, it may never be held liable for punitive damages, even in states that
authorize punitive damages awards.
Occasionally Congress immunizes private parties but establishes a federal compensation
program. Examples include the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which immunizes
government contractors who carried out atomic weapons testing programs from 1946 to 1962, as
well as the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 and the September 11th
Victims Compensation Fund of 2001.
Finally, some federal tort reform statutes do not eliminate the right to sue and do not establish
alternative compensation mechanisms. Rather, they cap noneconomic and punitive damages, limit
each defendant’s share of the total liability to its share of responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries,
or take other steps to limit recovery. Division C substitutes a federal cause of action for state
causes of action, but continues to apply state law.

ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

Henry Cohen
Vanessa K. Burrows
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
hcohen@crs.loc.gov, 7-7892
vburrows@crs.loc.gov, 7-0831





15 These statutes make private parties immune from suit by declaring them federal employees for liability purposes, as
the Federal Tort Claims Act makes federal employees immune from liability for torts they commit in the course of
employment. For additional information, see CRS Report 97-579, Making Private Entities and Individuals Immune
from Tort Liability by Declaring Them Federal Employees
, by Henry Cohen.
16 Federal employees, civilian or military, may not sue under the FTCA, but may receive federal benefits if injured on
the job. Plaintiffs who may sue under the FTCA nevertheless may not recover, and be left without a remedy, if one of
the FTCA’s exceptions applies. These include the discretionary function exception and the exception for claims arising
in a foreign country. For additional information, see CRS Report 95-717, Federal Tort Claims Act, by Henry Cohen
and Vanessa K. Burrows.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ