Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01423/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bret Kreizenbeck
Appellant
Sandra Kreizenbeck
Appellant
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BRET KREIZENBECK AND SANDRA 

KREIZENBECK, AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 

OF A MINOR CHILD, C.J.K.,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-1423

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:08-vv-00209-RHH, Senior Judge Robert H. 

Hodges, Jr.

______________________

Decided: January 6, 2020

______________________

RICHARD GAGE, Richard Gage, PC, Cheyenne, WY, argued for petitioners-appellants. 

 JULIA COLLISON, Vaccine/Torts Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH 

H. HUNT, ALEXIS B. BABCOCK, C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO,

CATHARINE E. REEVES. 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2020
2 KREIZENBECK v. HHS

 ______________________

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Bret and Sandra Kreizenbeck appeal a decision of the 

U.S. Court of Federal Claims that affirmed a special master’s decision denying the Kreizenbecks compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act. On appeal, the 

Kreizenbecks raise a single procedural issue: whether the 

special master abused his discretion by resolving their case

through a ruling on the record, without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without the Kreizenbecks’ consent. 

Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 26, 2008, Bret and Sandra Kreizenbeck filed 

a petition on behalf of their minor son, C.J.K., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-1–34 (“the Vaccine Act”). After raising several different causation theories in an amended petition and other 

filings, the Kreizenbecks ultimately alleged that vaccinations administered to C.J.K. in 2005 aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder and caused C.J.K. to suffer 

immune system dysfunction and other medical problems. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) contested the Kreizenbecks’ claims. A Special Master presided over the case.

In support of their petition, the Kreizenbecks submitted considerable evidence, including more than 1,500 pages 

of medical records, medical literature, an affidavit from 

Mrs. Kreizenbeck, and reports from three medical experts. 

In response, the Secretary submitted reports from three 

medical and scientific experts. After the Special Master

scheduled an entitlement hearing, both parties filed prehearing briefs, and the Secretary moved to dismiss the case

on the record. 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2020
KREIZENBECK v. HHS 3

The Special Master held a status conference on October 4, 2017, to determine whether a ruling on the record 

was appropriate. After reviewing the record evidence and 

the parties’ briefing, the Special Master determined that “a 

ruling on the papers was preferable to a hearing as the 

most efficient means for resolving the case.” J.A. 29. The 

Special Master also expressed “serious misgivings about 

the claims’ substantive validity,” and explained that if the 

parties proceeded to a hearing, he was unlikely to compensate the Kreizenbecks for the associated costs. J.A. 29.

The Kreizenbecks chose to “forgo their hearing” after determining that they would be unable to absorb those costs. 

J.A. 124. Nonetheless, they expressly objected to a ruling 

on the record. Id.

The Special Master allowed the parties to submit a final brief in support of their position. After reviewing each 

party’s final briefing, the Special Master determined that 

the matter was “ripe for resolution” because “nothing in the 

record and expert reports offered in this case suggests that

this matter’s outcome would be any different after a hearing.” J.A. 25, 55. 

In a thorough, 50-page opinion, the Special Master concluded that the Kreizenbecks failed to establish entitlement to compensation. He found no evidence supporting 

the claims that C.J.K. had an underlying mitochondrial 

dysfunction or that C.J.K. was injured from a vaccine. He 

found the Secretary’s mitochondrial expert “reliable and 

persuasive,” and found the Kreizenbecks’ medical expert

reports “self-evidently conclusory or unsubstantiated.” 

J.A. 54. He also found the “short affidavit” from Mrs. 

Kreizenbeck uncorroborated and inconsistent with the 

medical records. J.A. 54–55. As a result, he entered a ruling on the record dismissing the case. 

The Kreizenbecks sought review at the U.S. Court of 

Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). The Kreizenbecks did 

not dispute the substance of the Special Master’s decision. 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 01/06/2020
4 KREIZENBECK v. HHS

Instead, they challenged only his decision to dismiss their 

petition on the written record. The Claims Court affirmed 

the Special Master’s decision, citing the “wide discretion” 

afforded to special masters when determining whether to 

hold an evidentiary hearing. J.A. 4–5. The Claims Court 

found that the Special Master “gave [the Kreizenbecks] 

ample opportunity to support their claims with written evidence and briefs.” J.A. 4. The Court also found that the 

parties had submitted “a plethora of information.” Id. The 

Claims Court concluded that the Special Master’s opinion 

“provides ample reasoning to support dismissal of [the 

Kreizenbecks’] claims.” Id. 

The Kreizenbecks timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f). 

DISCUSSION

The Kreizenbecks raise a single, procedural challenge 

on appeal: whether the Special Master erred by ruling on 

the record without the Kreizenbecks’ consent. We review a 

special master’s decision to hold an evidentiary hearing for 

an abuse of discretion. See Oliver v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health 

& Human Servs., 900 F.3d 1357, 1364 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12); Munn v. Sec’y of Dep’t of 

Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870 n.10 (Fed. 

Cir. 1992). We review the Claims Court’s statutory interpretations de novo. Flowers v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & 

Human Servs., 49 F.3d 1558, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Congress enacted the Vaccine Act in 1986. The Vaccine 

Act created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (the “Vaccine Program”) through which parties 

can petition to receive compensation for vaccine-related injuries or death. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10(a). Subsection 12(d) of the Vaccine Act describes the role of special 

masters in deciding Vaccine Program petitions. Of particular relevance here, Subsection 12(d)(2) directs the Claims 

Court to promulgate rules governing Vaccine Program

cases before special masters, including rules that: 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 01/06/2020
KREIZENBECK v. HHS 5

(A) provide for a less-adversarial, expeditious, and informal proceeding for the 

resolution of petitions,

. . .

(C) include the opportunity for summary 

judgment, and 

(D) include the opportunity for parties to 

submit arguments and evidence on the 

record without requiring routine use of 

oral presentations, cross examinations, 

or hearings . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(2)(A), (C)–(D). In accordance with 

these provisions, the Claims Court promulgated Vaccine 

Rule 8(d), which provides:

The special master may decide a case on the basis 

of written submissions without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Submissions may include a motion for summary judgment, in which event the 

procedures set forth in RCFC 56 will apply.

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Appendix B, 

Vaccine Rule 8(d) (“Vaccine Rule 8(d)”).

The Kreizenbecks argue that 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)

and Vaccine Rule 8(d) provide special masters with only 

three procedural avenues to resolve a Vaccine Program 

case: (i) conduct an evidentiary hearing; (ii) resolve the 

case through summary judgment; or (iii) rule on the record, 

but only if both parties consent. In other words, once a 

party objects to a ruling on the record, the Kreizenbecks 

contend that a special master must either hold an evidentiary hearing or resolve the case through summary judgment. Here, the Kreizenbecks argue that the Special 

Master erred by ruling on the record over their objection:

Once Appellants objected to a ruling on the record, 

the appropriate procedure should have been to 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 01/06/2020
6 KREIZENBECK v. HHS

apply the summary judgment standards to the record evidence and if a resolution could not be 

reached using that appropriate standard, for the 

special master to order an evidentiary hearing to 

take the necessary evidence to resolve the case. 

The special master did not, however, grant Appellants the procedural protections of the summary 

judgment standards, which would require inferring 

the facts in the light most favorable to the 

[Kreizenbecks].

Appellant Br. 9–10. We disagree. 

Special masters have wide discretion in determining 

whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-12(d)(3)(B)(v) (providing that a special master 

“may conduct such hearings as may be reasonable and necessary” (emphasis added)); Vaccine Rule 8(d) (permitting 

special masters to “decide a case on the basis of written 

submissions without conducting an evidentiary hearing”); 

Oliver, 900 F.3d at 1364 n.6. 

While the Kreizenbecks concede that special masters 

have discretion to forgo an evidentiary hearing in some 

cases, they argue that a special master cannot rule on the 

record without the consent of both parties. Appellant 

Br. 16, 19. For support, the Kreizenbecks point to Congress’s use of the word “parties” in § 300aa-12(d)(2)(D). 

They contend:

The plural is important. It does not provide for one 

party to request a ruling on the record over the objection of the other party. It simply allows for a 

procedure in the instance where both “parties” 

agree that the record is complete and comprehensive enough to allow for a ruling on the record.

Appellant Br. 16. We are unpersuaded. 

Nothing in the language of § 300aa-12(d)(2)(D) or elsewhere in the Vaccine Act suggests a consent-based 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 01/06/2020
KREIZENBECK v. HHS 7

limitation on a special master’s authority to rule on the record. To the contrary, the provision merely requires a process that includes an “opportunity for parties to submit 

arguments and evidence on the record . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-12(d)(2)(D). The Kreizenbecks do not dispute the 

Claims Court’s finding that the Special Master “gave [the 

Kreizenbecks] ample opportunity to support their claims 

with written evidence and briefs.” J.A. 4. 

The Kreizenbecks also argue that the summary judgment provisions of § 300aa-12(d)(2)(C) and Vaccine 

Rule 8(d) are rendered meaningless unless we require both 

parties’ consent to a ruling on the record. We disagree. 

Subsection 12(d)(2)(C) merely requires the Claims Court to 

promulgate rules that “include the opportunity for summary judgment.” A party may seek summary judgment 

when, for example, they believe at an early stage of the proceedings that no material facts are in dispute and they will 

prevail as a matter of law. See Simanski v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., 671 F.3d 1368, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Likewise, Vaccine Rule 8(d) provides that a “special master 

may decide a case on the basis of written submissions without conducting an evidentiary hearing,” and those “[s]ubmissions may include a motion for summary judgment”

(emphasis added). In other words, Rule 8(d) contemplates 

that special masters can decide cases on written submissions other than motions for summary judgment. Id.

We also reject the argument that the Special Master

violated the Kreizenbecks’ due process rights by evaluating 

the credibility of their experts and Mrs. Kreizenbeck without live testimony or cross-examination. This argument 

contradicts the express language of the Vaccine Act. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(2)(D) (requiring rules that allow parties to submit evidence and arguments “without requiring

routine use of oral presentations, cross examinations, or 

hearings”); § 300aa-12(d)(3)(B) (“a special master . . . may 

require the testimony of any person”). The argument also 

contradicts the Kreizenbecks’ own cited case law. E.g., 

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 01/06/2020
8 KREIZENBECK v. HHS

Hale v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. 

Ct. 403, 209 (Fed. Cl. 1991) (“There is no requirement that 

oral testimony be taken to resolve differences in scientific 

or expert opinion. Opportunity for confrontation or cross 

examination is not required.”).

While we reject the Kreizenbecks’ consent-based argument, we note that the special master’s discretion to rule 

on the record is not without limitation. The Vaccine Act 

requires special masters to determine whether hearings or 

witness testimony are reasonable and necessary. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-12(d)(3)(B). Special masters must “afford[] each 

party a full and fair opportunity to present its case and 

creat[e] a record sufficient to allow review of the special 

master’s decision.” Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2). As a result, special masters must determine that the record is comprehensive and fully developed before ruling on the record. 

Simanski, 671 F.3d at 1385 (finding due process violation 

where special master ruled on the record at “an early procedural stage” before respondent had “present[ed] its position with respect to the petition and the supporting 

evidence”); Jay v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., 998 F.2d 979, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We conclude 

that the Special Master satisfied these requirements here.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the Kreizenbecks’ other arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. We conclude that the Special 

Master did not abuse his discretion by resolving this case 

on the record. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1423 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 01/06/2020