McDonald v. United States
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
555 F. Supp. 935 (1983)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Lucy McDonald (plaintiff) was born in May 1943. McDonald graduated high school and attended one year of college. In 1971, McDonald began working as a presser at Lee Manufacturing Company (Lee), a garment manufacturer. Lee considered her an excellent employee. In 1972, McDonald got married. In 1976, pursuant to the Swine Flu Act, the United States (defendant) implemented a program to inoculate the entire adult population against swine flu. The Swine Flu Act also created a cause of action against the United States for personal injury sustained as a result of being inoculated from the swine flu, under any theory of tort liability, following procedures provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In November 1976, at 33 years old, McDonald received the swine-flu inoculation in Pennsylvania. Subsequently, she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). McDonald sued the United States to recover compensatory damages, claiming that the swine-flu inoculation caused her to suffer GBS and related lower-extremity paraplegia and bowel and bladder dysfunction. McDonald and various experts at trial testified to McDonald’s prognosis, medical expenses, ongoing care, mental condition, emotional state, and lost and future wages. At the time of the court’s decision, McDonald was 39 years old, and she would have maintained her employment at Lee except for her illness.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conaboy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.