The court concluded that the TT inoculation caused or triggered an adverse reaction that resulted in severe and permanent injuries. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration presents two issues. The second is an issue raised by Petitioner. Although it will not now affect the outcome of the court's decision denying Respondent's Motion to Reconsider, the motion carries with it significant consequences that must be addressed.
Compelling arguments exist on both sides of the issue.
The letter's author, Dr. Roland Martin, argues that his comments at hearing were misunderstood and that his research paper, discussed at length at hearing, was misinterpreted. Petitioner objects to Exhibit Q for the reason that it appears to be an attempt to supplement the record after the record was closed and the decision rendered. Petitioner argues that its inclusion in the record at this late date, is prejudicial, redundant, and affords Respondent a second bite of the apple. Petitioner moves to strike Exhibit Q. Respondent counters by arguing that Exhibit Q goes to the heart of one of the key issues raised in its Motion for Reconsideration. In further support, Petitioner cites in addition to Horner ,the following cases.