527 F. App'x 875
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Paterek sought Vaccine Act compensation for his son J.P. after a July 20, 1999 DTaP vaccination allegedly causing developmental delays diagnosed March 2000.
- J.P. experienced an adjudicated adverse event (hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode) at the July 1999 vaccination and later developed motor delays and eye findings.
- J.P. had normal development through six months, with later emergence of developmental concerns and ophthalmologic findings (strabismus versus nystagmus) and eventual hydrocephalus-related issues.
- Special Master denied compensation, finding no causal link (Althen prong two) and no proximate temporal relationship (Althen prong three).
- Court of Federal Claims reviewed and remanded for compensation, but the Federal Circuit reversed, holding no reversible error in the Special Master’s view on prong two and reinstating denial; case proceeded to this Court of Appeals.
- This court reverses and remands with instructions to affirm the Special Master’s denial of compensation to Petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prong two (logical sequence) supports causation | Paterek contends a causal link supported by medical evidence. | Government contends the Special Master’s findings on prong two were not arbitrary or capricious. | Government prevailed; denial affirmed. |
| Whether prong three (proximate temporal relationship) is satisfied | Paterek argues onset within a medically acceptable timeframe. | Government argues no established onset window proven by the record. | Government prevailed; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Althen v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three-prong test for off-Table vaccine causation)
- Andreu v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (treating-physician testimony can support causation)
- Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirmative treating-physician causation evidence matters)
- de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (causation prong and timing framework; proximate temporal relationship)
- Moberly v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (framework for Table vs off-Table causation)
- Munn v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (deferential standard for special-master findings)
- Porter v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 663 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reaffirming deference to Special Master findings)
- Hazelhurst v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 604 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (arbitrary-and-capricious review of Vaccine Act determinations)
- Andreu v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explains limitations of equivocal physician testimony)
- Hines v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 940 F.2d 1518 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (pre-1989 standard; not controlling post-amendment)