Opinion ID: 419222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: burden of proof on causation

Text: 36 Plaintiff's argument for a shift in the burden of proof on the question of causation is premised upon the fact that medical science does not know what causes GBS. Given that unknown, plaintiff contends that the government is better equipped to provide statistical data than is the individual plaintiff. Therefore, in order to provide a meaningful remedy, plaintiff should be entitled to a presumption of causation so defendant will come forward with the available evidence. Plaintiff draws analogies to various negligence cases involving shifts of the burden of proof from plaintiffs to defendants. 37 The remedial provisions of the Swine Flu Act state in part as follows: 38 The United States shall be liable with respect to claims submitted after September 30, 1976 for personal injury or death arising out of the administration of swine flu vaccine under the swine flu program and based upon the act or omission of a program participant in the same manner and to the same extent as the United States would be liable in any other action brought against it under such section 1346(b) and chapter 171 [Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA] except that-- 39 (i) liability of the United States arising out of the act or omission of a program participant may be based on any theory of liability that would govern an action against such program participant under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, including negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach warranty .... 40 42 U.S.C. Sec. 247b(k)(2)(A). Congress has expressly directed the procedure for the handling of claims for personal injury arising out of the administration of the swine flu vaccine. An examination of the legislative history of the Swine Flu Act clearly reveals that Congress did not intend any change in the normal application of the Federal Tort Claims Act other than in specifically expressed instances not pertinent here. See 122 Cong.Rec. 26,62 5-40, 26,793-813 (1976). 41 In the present action, since the vaccination occurred in Colorado, Colorado law governs this issue. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b); Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962). The trial court, citing Exchange National Bank v. Sparkman, 191 Colo. 534, 554 P.2d 1090, 1092 (Colo.1976), concluded that plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the swine flu vaccine was the proximate cause of his GBS. The court held that in order for the swine fluvaccine to be a proximate cause of plaintiff's GBS, it must be shown the illness would not have occurred but for the inoculation or that the inoculation was a contributing factor bringing about the disease. Reaves v. Horton, 33 Colo.App. 186, 518 P.2d 1380 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, 186 Colo. 149, 526 P.2d 304 (1974). We agree. 42 Many of the authorities cited by plaintiff are not from Colorado. The direction provided by the Swine Flu Act as well as the Federal Tort Claims Act requires us to consider the law of Colorado. We address the arguments raised by plaintiff insofar as they are based on Colorado law. Among the analogies suggested, plaintiff likens the instant case to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. In order to apply this doctrine in Colorado, it is necessary to meet the essential elements as set forth in Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Gordon, Colo., 619 P.2d 66 (Colo.1980). In the instant case, the first essential element in Montgomery is dispositive: that the event [plaintiff's GBS] is the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. Id. 619 P.2d at 68. It is well accepted in the medical community that GBS can occur in the absence of negligence, indeed it can occur without any precipitating event. Plaintiff's Exhibit 26, Arnason, Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies, MDL 330 at 5 (50% of GBS cases have no obvious antecedent event). 43 Plaintiff also relies on Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., Colo., 618 P.2d 657 (Colo.1980). Prutch dealt with products liability and the allocation of the burden of proof on the question of the point at which a defect appeared in a product in the manufacturing-delivery process. Id. at 660. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that requiring each defendant in the chain of distribution to show that a product was not defective when it left its control poses no unreasonable burden on defendants. Such a procedure simply redistributes the burden to those who have superior knowledge of the truth and better access to evidence. Id. The Colorado Supreme Court's allocation of the burden of proof in Prutch clearly depends on the relative ease of the defendant's accessibility to evidence. In the instant case, however, knowledge of causation is equally inaccessible to both plaintiffs and defendants, and both have access to the same studies and information. We conclude that under the law of Colorado, this case does not present an instance where the burden of proof can be shifted on the question of causation to the defendant. 3 We hold further that the trial court applied the proper standard on the burden of proof.