Judicial review of vaccine injury claims
📘 I. Background: Vaccine Injury Claims and the VICP
What is the VICP?
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to:
Compensate individuals harmed by certain vaccines
Protect vaccine manufacturers from excessive liability
Ensure vaccine supply and public health
Structure of Claims Process:
Claim filed in U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Special Masters oversee the case
Decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, then to the Federal Circuit, and in some cases, to the Supreme Court
Common Legal Issues:
Causation standards
Burden of proof
Limits on civil tort remedies
Scope of federal preemption
Procedural due process
🧾 II. Key Case Law – Detailed Explanations
🔹 Case 1: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)
Facts:
A child allegedly developed seizures after receiving a DTP vaccine.
The family sued the manufacturer after losing in VICP.
Legal Question:
Does the Vaccine Act preempt all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that design defect claims are preempted under the Vaccine Act.
The Court emphasized that Congress created VICP as an exclusive remedy for vaccine injuries.
Significance:
Limited judicial review of design-based tort claims outside the VICP.
Protected vaccine manufacturers from traditional product liability lawsuits.
🔹 Case 2: Shyface v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 165 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
Facts:
An infant died after receiving a DPT shot. Multiple medical factors were involved.
The Special Master denied compensation, finding the vaccine was not the sole cause of death.
Legal Issue:
Must the vaccine be the sole cause, or just a substantial factor?
Holding:
The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the vaccine need only be a “substantial factor in causing the injury”, not the sole cause.
Significance:
Eased the causation burden for petitioners.
Affirmed the but-for and substantial factor test in vaccine injury claims.
🔹 Case 3: Althen v. Secretary of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Facts:
A woman alleged that a tetanus vaccine caused her neurological condition (neuropathy).
Legal Issue:
What is the proper standard of proof for causation?
Holding:
The court established the three-part Althen test:
A medical theory causally connecting the vaccine and injury
A logical sequence of cause and effect
A proximate temporal relationship between vaccine and injury
Significance:
Landmark case in vaccine law.
Clarified how petitioners can prove causation-in-fact without scientific certainty.
Lowered the evidentiary burden compared to typical tort cases.
🔹 Case 4: Capizzano v. Secretary of HHS, 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Facts:
Petitioner alleged rheumatoid arthritis after a hepatitis B vaccine.
Special Master denied the claim due to lack of scientific studies linking the two.
Holding:
Federal Circuit reversed, stating that treating physicians’ opinions are strong evidence and must be weighed seriously.
Scientific literature is not required under Althen.
Significance:
Strengthened the role of clinical experience and treating doctor testimony in proving vaccine injury.
Balanced scientific evidence with practical medical judgment.
🔹 Case 5: Andreu v. Secretary of HHS, 569 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Facts:
A child developed a seizure disorder after DTaP vaccination.
The Special Master denied compensation, claiming lack of published medical literature.
Holding:
Federal Circuit reversed again, reaffirming Althen and Capizzano.
Emphasized that medical records, expert testimony, and circumstantial evidence may suffice even without epidemiological data.
Significance:
Reinforced that the VICP is a no-fault system, not a tort system.
Courts should not require the kind of rigorous scientific proof required in traditional litigation.
🔹 Case 6: Doe v. Secretary of HHS, 601 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Facts:
A minor developed autism-like symptoms after vaccinations.
The case was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, which consolidated thousands of similar claims.
Holding:
The court upheld the denial, finding no reliable medical theory or temporal connection between the vaccine and the injury under Althen.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of expert testimony and scientific consensus in complex medical cases.
Illustrated the limits of the Althen test when applied to widely disputed conditions like autism.
🔹 Case 7: Pafford v. Secretary of HHS, 451 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Facts:
A girl developed seizures and neurological damage after vaccinations.
The Special Master awarded compensation, but it was reversed on review.
Holding:
Federal Circuit upheld the reversal, stating that the evidence did not meet the Althen test and did not rule out alternative causes.
Significance:
Emphasized that petitioners still have a burden to eliminate likely alternative causes, even in a relaxed evidentiary environment.
🧠 III. Legal Standards Emerging from These Cases
| Legal Standard | Description |
|---|---|
| Althen Test | Three-prong test for causation-in-fact |
| Substantial Factor Test | Vaccine must be a substantial factor, not the sole cause |
| Preponderance of Evidence | Petitioner must show “more likely than not” that the vaccine caused injury |
| Treating Physician Rule | Courts give strong weight to treating physicians' opinions |
| No Scientific Certainty Required | Epidemiological proof is not necessary |
| Limits of Compensation | If evidence strongly suggests alternative causes, compensation is denied |
⚖️ IV. Judicial Review Process
1. Initial Hearing before Special Master (Office of Special Masters – “Vaccine Court”)
2. Review by U.S. Court of Federal Claims
3. Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
4. Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court (discretionary)
✅ V. Conclusion
The judicial review of vaccine injury claims reflects a unique hybrid of administrative law and tort law, governed by specialized rules. Over the years, case law has developed a relatively petitioner-friendly framework under the VICP, especially through:
Relaxed evidentiary standards (e.g., Althen test)
Strong deference to treating physicians
Willingness to rely on circumstantial medical evidence
However, courts remain vigilant about:
Alternative causes
Lack of plausible medical theory
Timing inconsistencies
RELATED Blog
0 comments