Garcia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 21-1601V

Cristian Garcia filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, alleging he developed anti-NMDAR encephalitis following a Tdap vaccination in October 2020.
Garcia was diagnosed with anti-NMDAR encephalitis 18 days post-vaccination after experiencing seizures and related neuroinflammatory symptoms.
Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Babinski, provided multiple theories linking the vaccine to Garcia’s disorder, referencing medical literature and adverse event reports, but conceded mechanisms were unclear.
The Secretary’s expert, Dr. Hedrick, found no credible statistical or biological evidence linking Tdap vaccination to anti-NMDAR encephalitis and argued the events were coincidental.
Chief Special Master denied compensation, concluding Garcia failed to present a sound medical theory (Althen prong 1) or show a logical sequence of cause and effect (prong 2); unrebutted by later expert responses.
Garcia moved for review, arguing the Chief Special Master failed to consider two supplemental expert reports; the motion was denied by the Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Tdap vaccine cause anti-NMDAR encephalitis?	Cited case reports, VAERS data, and proposed biological mechanisms.	No credible scientific or epidemiologic evidence.	No sound and reliable scientific evidence supports causation; claim denied.
Did the Chief Special Master fail to consider all evidence?	Special Master ignored supplemental expert reports (Exs. 45 and 50).	Presumed all evidence was considered; no express omission.	No evidence Special Master excluded relevant reports; presumption not rebutted.
Would any failure to consider expert supplements be harmful error?	Exclusion prejudiced petitioner’s presentation of theories.	Any error was harmless; did not affect the outcome.	Even if not considered, error was harmless as reports did not alter underlying deficiencies in proof.
Was the finding on causation arbitrary/capricious or contrary to law?	Causation improperly weighed; standard misapplied.	Standard properly applied; findings well-supported.	Decision was rational and within discretion; no reversible error found.

Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (articulates three-prong test for causation in vaccine cases)
Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (approves the necessity for reliable scientific evidence of causation)
Milik v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 822 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (sets deferential standard for review of special master’s factual findings)
Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (special masters are presumed to consider all record evidence)