Purvis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 14-1025

Background

Petitioner Christopher Purvis filed a Vaccine Program claim alleging that an influenza vaccination precipitated osteomyelitis/discitis beginning the day after vaccination; the Special Master dismissed the petition on July 25, 2017 for failure to make a prima facie case.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration and clarification, arguing (among other things) that autoimmune medications were prescribed, his symptoms persisted beyond six months, and there is no evidence discitis predated the vaccination.
The Special Master invited respondent to respond; respondent declined unless ordered to do so.
Two experts testified: petitioner’s Dr. David Axelrod (immunology/rheumatology) proposed an autoimmune/molecular mimicry theory linking flu vaccine proteins to disc inflammation but conceded lack of supporting literature and uncertainty about mechanism and timing; respondent’s Dr. Collins (infectious disease) testified that the clinical picture and MRI are consistent with infectious osteomyelitis/discitis and that vaccine causation and the proposed homologies lack support.
Treating physicians at Lawrence & Memorial Hospital treated Purvis for presumed bacterial osteomyelitis/discitis, recommended IV antibiotics and biopsy (which Petitioner refused and left against medical advice), and provided extended oral antibiotic therapy; contemporaneous records support an infectious etiology.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reconsideration should be granted based on manifest injustice	Purvis: dismissal was unjust because treating notes showing autoimmune treatment and persistent symptoms were not properly considered	Sec’y: respondent did not press a response but trial record and contemporaneous records were considered; no intervening law or new evidence	Motion granted for clarification but reconsideration of the record still results in dismissal (no manifest injustice shown)
Whether petitioner proved vaccine causation for discitis	Purvis/Axelrod: temporal proximity, proposed molecular mimicry (hemagglutinin/neuraminidase homology) and steroid prescription indicate autoimmune reaction from vaccine	Sec’y/Collins: no literature or community support; homology alone is insufficient; timing and mechanism implausible; treating docs favored infection	Held: petitioner failed to prove causation; expert opinion was speculative and unsupported by literature or mechanism
Weight of treating physicians and contemporaneous records	Purvis: treating notes did not exclude vaccine causation; prednisone prescription indicates autoimmune treatment	Sec’y: treating doctors diagnosed/treated for infection, planned biopsy/IV antibiotics; records favor infectious etiology	Held: treating physicians’ contemporaneous opinions that this was infectious carry substantial weight; undermines petitioner’s theory
Whether petitioner’s condition constituted sequelae > six months (eligibility/consideration)	Purvis: asserts symptoms persisted beyond six months and cites a physical therapy note	Sec’y: argues records show abdominal/testicular symptoms did not persist and chronic back pain history complicates timing	Held: dismissal was not based solely on the six‑month argument; reevaluation clarified records and timing but still supports dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298 (motion for reconsideration standard in Fed. Cl.) (standard for seeking reconsideration requires extraordinary circumstances)
Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 524 (reconsideration grounds: change in law, new evidence, or preventing manifest injustice)
Prati v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 373 (reconsideration not for rearguing matters already considered)
Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 555 (motions for reconsideration decline where arguments previously considered)
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779 (definition of "manifest" injustice for reconsideration standard)
Northern States Power Co. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 748 (courts should bring proceedings to a close; reconsideration limited)
Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (treating physicians’ opinions deserve serious consideration in Vaccine Program cases)
Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144 (expert opinion that excludes other causes without affirmative proof is legally insufficient)
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 618 F.3d 1339 (weight of evidence and expert testimony in vaccine cases)
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367 (role of medical and expert evidence in causation analysis)