Griglock v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16785
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Griglock's estate seeks Vaccine Act compensation; Special Master found influenza vaccine caused GBS and GBS-related death, but injury benefits barred by statute limitations.
- Court of Federal Claims affirmed; estate timely sought death benefits but argued for injury and pain/suffering too.
- Vaccine Act provides death benefit of $250,000 and limits on other compensations; § 300aa-16 sets separate filing windows for injury (36 months) and death (24 months from death, up to 48 months from onset).
- Ms. Griglock received a flu vaccine on Oct 6, 2005; onset Nov 23, 2005; death May 11, 2007; petition filed Apr 30, 2009.
- Government suggested injury lack of causation but recommended death benefit; estate sought unreimbursed medical expenses and pain/suffering.
- Court holds estate has standing as legal representative but injury benefits time-barred because filed outside 36-month injury window.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the estate has standing to seek injury compensation | Griglock estate has standing as representative of a vaccine-related death | Statutory standing limited to the vaccine-injured person, not its estate for injury claims | Estate has standing to petition for compensation as legal representative |
| Whether causation findings affect the estate's entitlement | Special Master correctly found vaccine caused GBS and death | No sufficient evidence to causally link vaccine to GBS | Causation found in favor of the estate |
| Whether filing windows permit both injury and death benefits simultaneously | Timing should allow all § 300aa-15 benefits if Petition filed timely under § 300aa-16(a)(3) | Distinct filing periods for injury and death remain; timely death petition cannot revive untimely injury petition | Injury petition time-barred; only death benefits available |
| How § 300aa-16 interacts with § 300aa-15 in limiting recovery | Act should be read to maximize recovery consistent with § 300aa-15 | §§ 300aa-16(a)(2) and (a)(3) create clear, separate limits; not interchangeable | Read as distinct limits; preventing untimely injury recovery even if death petition timely |
| Whether the estate's policy arguments to expand generosity override statutory limits | Act is remedial; generous compared to civil torts and should be broader | Statutory limits on recovery and timelines must be strictly construed | Statutory text controls; no expansion based on policy arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Zatuchni v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 516 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (estate may seek multiple compensation types when properly filed)
- Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc discussion on equitable tolling and limitations)
- Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (limitations on the Vaccine Act relief and generosity)
- Markovich v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 477 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (strict construction of limitations on Vaccine Act waivers)
- Wilkerson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 593 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reaffirms strict interpretation of limitations and eligibility)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (ambiguity rules; statutory context matters for interpretation)