Hammitt ex rel. Hammitt v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
98 Fed. Cl. 719
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Petitioner Scott Hammitt seeks Vaccine Act compensation for his daughter Rachel, alleging the March 15, 2004 DTaP vaccination caused a Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy (SMEI).
- Rachel developed an initial febrile/prolonged seizure within hours of vaccination and later suffered ongoing seizures and developmental concerns.
- Genetic testing revealed a de novo SCN1A mutation associated with SMEI, with experts concluding a severe SMEI phenotype likely regardless of vaccination.
- Special Master Gol-kiewicz previously denied compensation on remand, finding Rachel’s SCN1A mutation was the sole substantial factor; Hammitt challenged this determination.
- On remand (remand order), the Special Master again denied compensation, applying the Althen framework and holding that Hammitt failed to prove a vaccine-caused injury;Respondent’s SCN1A-based causation was deemed sole substantial cause.
- The Court reviews de novo legal questions and defers to the Special Master’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Althen was properly applied | Hammitt asserts Althen prongs were satisfied by a brain-damage theory. | Respondent contends Althen prongs were not met; SCN1A mutation was sole cause. | Althen applied; prima facie case not shown. |
| Whether circumstantial evidence suffices for causation | Circumstantial evidence can satisfy prong two under Althen. | Brain-damage theory required direct evidence; circumstantial evidence insufficient. | Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove prong two; failure to show brain damage. |
| Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts governs causation | Restatement principles support a vaccine-related substantial factor analysis. | Restatement aligns with Althen prongs; evidence did not show vaccine as substantial factor. | Restatement considerations are subsumed by Althen; not satisfied here. |
| Whether new remand evidence should be admitted | New articles and expert reports could alter the outcome. | Evidence was untimely and outside remand scope; unlikely to affect result. | denial of new remand evidence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (establishes the three-prong causation test for Vaccine Act claims)
- de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (sole substantial factor framework within Althen context)
- Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (Restatement-based causation discussion in Vaccine Act cases)
- Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 601 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (courts may consider the record as a whole in Vaccine Act review)
- Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 451 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (burden-shifting framework for off-table injuries)
- Munn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (statutory- and evidentiary-standards guidance for Vaccine Act review)