OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Thе case before the Court is a review of the Special Master’s decision dismissing petitioner’s request for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). Devonshire v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., No. 99-031V,
Upon review of the Special Mastеr’s opinion and the entire record, the Court concludes that the Special Master correctly determined that as a factual matter, petitioner failed to prove that she suffered brachial neuritis, and affirms the Special Master’s decision.
II. Discussion
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), this Court hаs the authority to (a) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special master and sustain the decision; (b) set aside any finding of fаct or conclusion of law that is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; or (c) remand the petition to the speciаl master for further action. The Court must give great deference to the special master’s findings of fact and will disturb his decision only if it is arbitrary and capri
The Vaccine Act program was created in large part to preempt tort litigation against vaccine manufacturers and provide compensation to injured individuals without requiring the rigorous burdens of proof associated with products liability litigation, including causation, negligence, and product defectiveness. See generally Stevens v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., No. 99-594V,
Nevertheless, the issue here is not one of involving the complexities of causation — how to establish as a matter of law a cogent, verifiable nexus between thе disease and the administration of the vaccine. Instead, it is the very existence of the malady of which petitioner complains that is at issue. Without such a showing, causation becomes a moot point. To be sure, the crux of petitioner’s claim is that, without previously experiencing any neck or back problems, she suffered brachial neuritis shortly after receiving a vaccination containing tetanus toxoid, аnd that injury caused (or exacerbated an underlying) cervical spine disease thereby resulting in cervical radiculopathy. Devonshire, No. 99-031V,
In his decision, Special Master Abell meticulously described the relevant evidence and facts, which the Court need not recitе in full. Id. at *1-13. The Special Master thoroughly evaluated the petitioner’s medical records as well as the medical opinions of sevеral physicians. Based on all the evidence, the Special Master was unable to find any “objective medical or scientific prоof that a brachial neuritis occurred.” Id. at *18.
An electromyography test (“EMG”) conducted four months after the vaccination, a type of tеst which petitioner’s own expert stated could “unambiguously establish the diagnosis of brachial neuritis,” showed no evidence of brachial neuritis. Id. at *18. Also, while the medical records reflect that brachial neuritis was considered by the petitioner’s treating physicians, “one by one they either downgrade[d] it [аs] a possibility, excluded it entirely, or believe[d] her condition to have been more likely caused by something else.” Id. at *19. Ultimately, even petitioner’s own expert was reluctant to definitively diagnose petitioner with brachial neuritis, instead relying on “post hoc ergo propter hoc ” reasoning that the Special Master rejected. Id. at *20. The Special Master ultimatеly concluded that there was “a paucity of evidence from which [the] Court [could] conclude that Petitioner suffered a brachial nеuritis following administration of the tetanus vaccination.” Id. Special Master Abell amply supported his conclusion, stating:
Based on the entirеty of the records and evidence filed in this case, this Court is loathe to superimpose a diagnosis of bra-chial neuritis sue sponte. A myriad of tests have been performed and a number*455 of doctors cоnsulted [including] several neurologists and neurosurgeons, and none of them, none of her treating physicians, ever reached this final conclusion. There is evidence that many doctors considered a brachial neuritis. But after ordering tests and on more careful observation, they сould not confirm that diagnosis; and, in fact, most of them made statements per contra. Dr. Tornatore [petitioner’s testifying expert], himself appeared reluctant to come to this conclusion until there had been additional medical tests. Those tests were not supportive of Dr. Tornatore’s intent, but nevertheless he opined that is was still possible that an atypical case of brachial neuritis had occurred.
Id. at *18.
The Special Master found, and this Court agrees, that petitioner failed to prove that she actually suffered from brachial neuritis. The Special Master’s decision was predicated on his findings of fact; he undоubtedly considered all the relevant evidence and articulated a rational basis for his decision. Accordingly, this Court cannot disturb his decisiоn. See Hines,
III. Conclusion
In the instant matter, the Special Master concluded that petitioner did not support her claim with sufficient evidence to prove shе suffered the injury of which she complained. The Special Master judiciously and appropriately declined to provide petitiоner with a diagnosis the medical profession declined to find, and as such, the Court AFFIRMS the Special Master’s decision and dismisses the petition with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.