Growing Divide Among Courts On Vaccines
The National Law Journal recently reported on a DPT (diphtheria, whole-cell pertussis, tetanus) vaccine case that was reversed on appeal, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.
The Federal Circuit Court decided that a boy vaccinated at 8 weeks is entitled to compensation, after all.
According to the claim, the vaccination caused a seizure disorder that led to the child, Enrique Andreu, developing a low IQ and language and developmental delays. The Appeals Court (Federal Circuit Court) decided the Special Master (Judge) in the original decision "erroneously… determined that the testimony of Petitioner's physicians was insufficient to establish 'a logical sequence of cause and effect' leading to Petitioner's vaccine-related injury; and (erroneously) imposed upon Petitioner an elevated evidentiary burden, requiring conclusive proof in the medical literature linking Petitioner's symptoms to the vaccine at issue."
In plain language, the Appeals Court sent a message to the Special Masters in Vaccine Court: that they are (at times) interpreting the evidence too harshly against the Plaintiff. In the words of the Plaintiff's attorney: the Special Masters "require a burden of proof that's just too high." The government which defended the case has not made comment. It's not the first time the Appeals Court has sent such a message to the Vaccine Court. Yet sources say the Appeals Court has not given blanket guidance to the Vaccine Court to help it come into synch with the Appeals Court interpretations and philosophy. If the Vaccine Court's burden of proof is too high, then what should it be? Where is the bar set?
With those questions yet unanswered, some observers believe reversals such as in the Andreu case could have implications in the autism test cases currently on appeal. The plaintiffs lost three autism test cases soundly in Vaccine Court and all are under appeal. The same law firm that handled the Andreu DPT case is also handling two of the test cases.
Here's the full article by the National Law Journal.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. The Federal Circuit Court decided that a boy vaccinated at 8 weeks is entitled to compensation, after all.
According to the claim, the vaccination caused a seizure disorder that led to the child, Enrique Andreu, developing a low IQ and language and developmental delays. The Appeals Court (Federal Circuit Court) decided the Special Master (Judge) in the original decision "erroneously… determined that the testimony of Petitioner's physicians was insufficient to establish 'a logical sequence of cause and effect' leading to Petitioner's vaccine-related injury; and (erroneously) imposed upon Petitioner an elevated evidentiary burden, requiring conclusive proof in the medical literature linking Petitioner's symptoms to the vaccine at issue."
In plain language, the Appeals Court sent a message to the Special Masters in Vaccine Court: that they are (at times) interpreting the evidence too harshly against the Plaintiff. In the words of the Plaintiff's attorney: the Special Masters "require a burden of proof that's just too high." The government which defended the case has not made comment. It's not the first time the Appeals Court has sent such a message to the Vaccine Court. Yet sources say the Appeals Court has not given blanket guidance to the Vaccine Court to help it come into synch with the Appeals Court interpretations and philosophy. If the Vaccine Court's burden of proof is too high, then what should it be? Where is the bar set?
With those questions yet unanswered, some observers believe reversals such as in the Andreu case could have implications in the autism test cases currently on appeal. The plaintiffs lost three autism test cases soundly in Vaccine Court and all are under appeal. The same law firm that handled the Andreu DPT case is also handling two of the test cases.
Here's the full article by the National Law Journal.
Recommended
6 Comments Add a Comment
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- As a family member of a vaccine injured child still trying to get justice, I assure you the vaccine compensation program is no longer capable of functioning in an ethical and just manner. The program needs to be ditched so families can sue the doctors and drug companies. Our SP said one thing in the hearing but wrote the opposite in the opinion. Meanwhile, the vaccine injured child suffers.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- What is a 7 year old plaintiff deafened by Merck's MMR vaccine to do when confronted by 45 Dept. of Justice attorney's defending Merck ? "Special Master" is another name for a ***** paid for by big pharma.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- There can be no question "Special Masters" are bought-off stooges.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- Since I was nearly killed by a tetanus shot 9 years ago and am permanently disabled, I feel as if my input has more experience behind it than emotion. Yes--things happen, and when they do, the results can be awful. A fund was developed to compensate these cases and the people who qualify should not be denied payment. I went through the legal application process and it is very demeaning and lengthy. The manufacturer is already off the hook financially so the concept of "spurious law suits" seems a bit condescending. Families with children or individuals who have been damaged by a vaccine deserve to receive help. I am not against vaccines, just the overuse of them and their toxic ingredients. Gardasil has already maimed a lot of young women; maybe when it is given to males there will be more of a public outcry instead of mandatory compliance. We worry about peanut butter more than vaccines and if you read the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) statistics, you will realize that there are more adverse reactions than people realize.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- A B.S. reversal. Medical research and published literature firmly establishes a divide between this innoculation and any occurence of mental damage. Of course, this instance may be the one-in-a-billion case. If so.... stuff happens. The vaccine manufacturer has done due dilligence and should not be held liable for any damages whatsoever. Decisions like this may end up causing the withdrawl of such beneficial vaccines to protect manufacturers against spurious law suits.
- reply
-
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- There are NO beneficial vaccines.
