Keaton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJuly 25, 2014
Docket1:12-vv-00444
StatusPublished

This text of Keaton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Keaton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keaton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2014).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-444V Filed: July 2, 2014 (To be published)

*************************** RONALD KEATON * * Proof of Vaccination; Fact Ruling and Petitioner, * Dismissal Decision; Flu Vaccine; v. * GBS; CIDP; Ruling on the Record * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * *Respondent. ***************************

Firooz Namei, Esq., McKinney & Namei Company, L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Petitioner. Debra Begley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

FACT RULING AND DISMISSAL DECISION1

Gowen, Special Master:

On July 17, 2012, petitioner, Ronald Keaton, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (“the Act”). The petition alleged that the seasonal influenza vaccine and pneumonia vaccine2 petitioner received

1 Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access. 2 The adult pneumococcal vaccine, which was administered on August 31, 2010, is not a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Act. See 42. C.F.R. § 100.3. With some exceptions for certain risk factors, children are administered a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar) while adults receive pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (Pneumovax). See http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pneumo/default htm (last visited 5/28/2014). Although the childhood formulation of the pneumococcal vaccine appears on the Vaccine Injury Table, the adult formulation does not. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; see also Schmidt v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 11-410V, 2011 WL 6148590, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 21, 2011); Morrison v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 04-1683V, 2005 WL 2008245, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 2005); Finley v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 04-874V, 2004 WL 2059490, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 24, 2004) (finding that pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not covered under the Vaccine Program).

1 on August 31, 2010, caused his chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy [CIPD]. Further, petitioner states in his petition that initially he was diagnosed with Miller-Fisher variant acute inflammatory demyelinating poly-neuropathy [AIDP], often referred to as Guillain-Barre syndrome [GBS] and the condition evolved to CIDP.

This case was initially assigned to Special Master Daria Zane on July 17, 2012, subsequently to Chief Special Master Denise Vowell on September 23, 2013, and finally to Special Master Thomas L. Gowen on March 5, 2014.

The adult pneumococcal vaccine is not a vaccine covered under the Act and thus, petitioner’s claim is limited to a claim for injury due to the influenza vaccine. Respondent has raised the issue of whether petitioner actually received a covered vaccine as pled in the petition, based on her belief that petitioner had not filed sufficient evidence to support a finding that he received an influenza vaccine on August 31, 2010. A hearing was held, interrogatories answered, additional medical records filed and a status conference held on February 27, 2014, during which the parties requested a ruling on the record. After consideration of the record, I have concluded that petitioner has been unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a flu vaccine was administered on August 31, 20103 and thus this claim must be dismissed.

I. Standards for Finding Vaccination

A petitioner must prove as a threshold matter that he received a vaccine covered by the Act within the United States, with certain exceptions not relevant to the instant action. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(C)(1)(A) and (B). In determining the persuasiveness of the evidence, the special master must assess “the record as a whole” and may not find that a petitioner received a vaccine “based on the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1). Vaccine Rule 2 requires, in accordance with 42 U.S.C § 300aa-11(c), that a petition shall be accompanied by “all available medical records supporting the allegations in the petition, including physician and hospital records relating to: the vaccination itself.” Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(A)(i).

Although contemporaneous documentation of vaccination from a health care provider is the best evidence, its production is not an absolute requirement. See Centmehaiey v. Sec’y, HHS, 32 Fed. Cl. 612, 621 (1995) (“The lack of contemporaneous documentary proof of a vaccination . . . does not necessarily bar recovery.”). Vaccine Rule 2 states that “[i]f the required medical records are not submitted, the petitioner must include an affidavit detailing the efforts made to obtain such records and the reasons for their unavailability.” Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(B)(i). Furthermore, if petitioner’s claim is “based in any part on the observations or testimony of any person, the petitioner should include the substance of each person’s proposed testimony in a detailed affidavit(s) supporting all elements of the allegations made in the petition.” Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(B)(ii).

3 Additionally, as discussed in the procedural history, petitioner alleged that an additional flu vaccine was administered on January 28, 2011. However, the record from the time of the alleged additional flu vaccine, specifically the Riverside Methodist Pharmacy record, filed on February 1, 2014, does not support petitioner’s claim. See Pet. Ex. 19.

2 Special masters have found in favor of vaccine administration where direct documentation of vaccination is unavailable. In such cases, preponderant evidence was found in other medical records and/or witness testimony. For example, corroborative, though backward- looking, medical notations have been found to tip the evidentiary scale in favor of vaccine receipt. See Lamberti v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 99-507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2007) (finding multiple medical record references to vaccine receipt constituted adequate evidence of administration); Groht v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 00-287V, 2006 WL 3342222, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30, 2006).

In addition to corroborative medical records, witness testimony has been found to be a sufficient basis for finding that a vaccine was administered as alleged. Alger v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 89-31V, 1990 WL 293408, at *2, 7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 14, 1990) (finding oral testimony from a parent and the doctor who administered the vaccine to be “more than adequate to support a finding that the vaccine was administered.”).

II. Procedural History

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Centmehaiey v. Secretary of Department of Health
32 Fed. Cl. 612 (Federal Claims, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keaton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keaton-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2014.