The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to take on a vaccine injury case. SCOTUS is an appeals court, i.e. they only hear cases that have been already heard in other courts and this case is no different, having been heard in Vaccine Court and at least one appeals court. SCOTUS only hears a fraction of the cases that are submitted, choosing cases that set important precedents to help define U.S. laws. It is also worth noting that SCOTUS tends to decide on issues involving interpretation of law. In this case, they are not going to decide whether the child in question was injured, but, ratehr, the Court is to decide if a vaccine manufacturer can be sued directly. The question posed by the family in their petition is:
Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 [“the Act”] expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1). A-104.
We hold that the plaintiffs design defect claims are expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act. We also conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to establish either a manufacturing defect or a warning defect claim under the Vaccine Act. For the reasons discussed above, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wyeth.
In other words, they were not able to prove that the had the right to bring a “design defect” claim at all, and they failed to prove if there was a manufacturing defect or a warning defect.
The SCOTUS docket is online . I found it interesting that the self-named “National Vaccine Information Center” has filed a “friend of the court” brief, with Jim Moody listed as the attorney. Mr. Moody is on the board for SafeMinds , a group active in promoting the notion that mercury causes autism, and has been active in the public relations effort to support Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
The paragraph of the Vaccine Act covering this is partially quoted in the question posed to SCOTUS above. This is from § 300aa–22. Standards of responsibility
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
I often read comments by parents claiming that vaccine manufacturers have zero liability. This is not accurate, as noted below (and referenced in the quote above):
(2) If in such an action the manufacturer shows that it complied, in all material respects, with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and this chapter applicable to the vaccine and related to the vaccine injury or death with respect to which the action was brought, the manufacturer shall not be held liable for punitive damages unless the manufacturer engaged in
In other words, if there is really the corruption many parent groups claim, the vaccine manufacturers are liable for lawsuits. But, this is a diversion as the present case before SCOTUS is not about this. As noted above, they are trying to define the question of whether the Vaccine Act precludes suits for design defect claims.
They had argued (and lost) in previous cases that the vaccine was “negligently designed because the defendant knew of a safer alternative and failed to produce it”.
As noted in a recent post by Mary Holland at the Age of Autism blog:
A three judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously decided in March 2009 that petitioner Hannah Bruesewitz did not have the right to sue vaccine manufacturer Wyeth, Inc. to assert that its vaccine design was unsafe. [See Bruesewitz-Decision] Hannah was born in October, 1991, and received her third DPT shot on schedule on April 1, 1992. Shortly thereafter she developed “residual seizure disorder,” recognized as a Table Injury at the time, meaning that causation was presumed. “Residual seizure disorder” was deleted from the Table just one month before she filed her case. Finally, on December 20, 2002, more than ten years later, Vaccine Court categorically rejected her claim. This hardly complies with Congress’ promise in the 1986 NCVIA that awards be “made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.” The Bruesewitz family argues that the safer acellular DTaP vaccine was long available by the time Hannah received the DPT and suffered seizures, and that her vaccine injury was avoidable had the manufacturer used this demonstrably safer vaccine design.
There is a lot of history involved in the above paragraph. Let’s start with the fact that the NCVIA (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) was put into place largely because of a number of claims filed about the safety of the older, whole cell, DPT vaccine. “Whole-cell” means that the pertussis vaccine component (the “P” in DPT) was made from whole pertussis bacteria which were killed. The concept of the pertussis vaccine, and the DPT vaccine in particular, as being dangerous is largely due to a study in 1981, Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. That study claimed, “A significance association was shown between serious neurological illness and pertussis vaccine, though cases were few and most children recovered completely.”
Another study (in 1981) showed a significant number of temporary adverse reactions, Nature and Rates of Adverse Reactions Associated with DTP and DT Immunizations in Infants and Children .
Given Ms. Holland’s statement above (and similar statements I have read recently by others), one might assume that the removal of seizure disorders from the Table Injuries was somewhat arbitrary. This is not the case. Between the time of the 1981 study and 1995 (when seizure disorders were removed from the Table), numerous studies were performed which showed no link between DTP and seizures or other neurological injuries. One large study, published in 1994 (shortly before the Table injury was removed) is Risk of serious acute neurological illness after immunization with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. A population-based case-control study . They found no increased risk due to DTP in about 380,000 doses given. A more recent study (2001) The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine , concluded “There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences.”
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether the vaccine causes an injury. But, it would seem that the plaintiffs might be able to argue that the DTP vaccine resulted in more short-term adverse effects, but not that the science supports the idea that seizure disorders were caused by the vaccine.
Vaccine injury cases must be first heard in the special “Vaccine Court”. This case is no different. The decision can be found on the Vaccine Court’s website. The girl, Hannah, started having seizures after her third DPT vaccination. These progressed to a very serious seizure disorder, including times of status epilepticus (a continual state of seizures).
On April 14, 1992, Dr. Ira Bergman, a pediatric neurologist, wrote that she was entirely well until April 1, 1992 when she went for her third DPT and HiB which were given at 10:00 a.m. She did well until 12:30 p.m. when she suddenly began screaming and had a stiffening spell of her arms and legs that lasted for less than one minute. She was mildly groggy afterwards and, then, within a few minutes, was back to normal.
Her parents argued that Hannah suffered an acute encephalopathy (which is a table injury), with their expert witness defining it as ““any disease of the brain.” The Court, however, recognizes a different definition, where brain function must be depressed for a significant time. In other words, even though Hannah suffered seizures, the fact that she appeared normal, even happy, between the seizures was taken as evidence that the seizures were not the result of an acute encephalopathy.
The statement by Ms. Holland above notes the long delay between when the vaccine was administered and when the hearing was held (10 years). This is, of course, not acceptable. However, it is worth noting that it appears that the family’s attoney (Mr. Clifford Shoemaker) was not prepared when the first
1) April 1992, the third dose of DPT was administered
Could the system have been more efficient? Yes. That includes the family’s attorney and expert witnesses.
While we are talking about the expert witnesses, I realized as I read this decision that there were familiar parts. First, one regular expert witness, Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne was supposed to testify for the family. He “chose to withdraw” from the case. Another regular expert witness to the vaccine court, Dr. Mark Geier was also involved. Dr. Geier’s “expert” report left something to be desired.
First, his second report has obvious mistakes:
Petitioners filed Dr. Geier’s second affidavit, dated August 28, 2001. P. Ex. 22. In it, Dr. Geier confuses Hannah’s case with someone else’s because he refers to her death and subsequent autopsy. Hannah is still alive. Based on a meta-analysis from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Dr. Geier concludes that DPT caused her purported encephalopathy. He also refers to the VAERS reports regarding arthritic symptoms and hepatitis and rubella vaccines. (Hannah does not have arthritic symptoms; hepatitis and rubella vaccines are not at issue here.)
His fourth report has some odd statements, including using a movie as a reference (yes, a movie):
Petitioners filed Dr. Geier’s fourth report, dated March 22, 2002. P. Ex. 33. Here, inter alia, he discusses the movie “A Beautiful Mind” as evidence that DPT can cause afebrile seizures because the lead character was administered insulin in order to cause him to have afebrile seizures which was hoped to be a cure of his schizophrenia. Dr. Geier thinks DPT lowered Hannah’s blood sugar, causing afebrile seizures.
Why use a movie? I can’t be certain, but from what I’ve heard, there is no scientific evidence that pertussis vaccines (either DPT or DTaP) can reduce blood sugar.
Dr. Geier’s testimony was not convincing:
Regarding Dr. Geier, the specialist in genetics and forensic medicine, his affidavits and report are not credible. First, being a board-certified geneticist and forensic medicine specialist does not qualify him to diagnose neurological diseases and offer an opinion as to how doctors who do specialize in neurology define “encephalopathy.” Dr. MacDonald’s testimony about the definition of acute encephalopathy is more credible than Dr. Geier’s and is well-supported in the medical literature. Hannah did not have acute encephalopathy.
Beyond that, the facts were not convincing. As noted above, the fact that between seizures Hannah appeared normal was evidence against an acute encephalopathy.
The family’s counsel also argued a “non-table” encephalopathy. However, this argument also did not prevail. The girl’s EEG’s did not indicate an encephalopathy, and the seizure activity in the EEG’s did not appear unusual for someone with epilepsy.
I do not know if the arguments the family would put forth would be different in civil court, but it doesn’t seem likely that the arguments they made in vaccine court (which has rules
Back to the present case in front of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Why would the Court hear this case? The Vaccine Act is a major piece of legislation. Whenever the U.S. Government (or any sovereign power) alloys itself to be sued (which is what the Act does), it is a big deal. But, this case actually involves what happens outside of the vaccine court. This affects the vaccine program, a major piece of the American public health program. The government extended protection to vaccine manufacturers by taking on liability itself. The question is how far does this protection go? A recent case (2008) from an appeals court in Georgia stated that people could sue the vaccine manufacturers for a “design defect”, contrary to the decision from Colorado that is the basis for this SCOTUS case. We have two different appeals courts with two different decisions on a very important piece of legislation. In addition, the Obama administration, through the Department of Justice, filed a “friend of the court” brief in regards to the Georgia case. The administration would like to see the “design defect” question answered before the Omnibus Autism Proceeding completes and thousands of families look to the civil courts for their next step. The Georgia case was withdrawn by the family, but the DoJ requested that the Supreme Court take on the Bruesewitz case in order to answer this question. This is perfect territory for the Supreme Court. They won’t decide if any child was injured, but they will clarify the definition of a key piece of legislation.
This case isn’t specifically about the question of vaccines causing autism. The Bruesewitz case, as argued in vaccine court, involves a seizure disorder. The impact for the many families who may be denied claims in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding is obvious: if the Supreme Court allows “design defect” claims, this will open a window for these families to sue in civil court.
If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.
<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/03/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-vaccine-case/">U.S. Supreme Court to hear vaccine-autism case</a>