Opinion ID: 587397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Decision of the Claims Court

Text: 65 Regarding the evidence of an encephalopathy, the special master reviewed the record as a whole, including the autopsy report and the evaluations of Chelsea's condition in the emergency room on December 3, before concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish that an encephalopathy had occurred. 66 As to Chelsea's hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode, the special master determined that the Petitioner had established that the episode had occurred. This satisfied one of the requirements for eligibility for compensation set forth in § 300aa-13(a)(1). 67 With regard to the second requirement for eligibility, that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the death was due to factors unrelated to the vaccination, the special master examined whether Chelsea's death was an acute complication or sequela (including death) of a Table injury. See Opinion of Special Master at 10. Having defined a sequela as a pathological condition resulting from a disease, 13 the special master found that Chelsea's death was neither a complication nor a sequela to the hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode. Rather, he concluded that Chelsea succumbed to infection and thus that the pneumonia led to her death. In response to Petitioner's argument that the vaccination made Chelsea more vulnerable to the pneumonia, the special master found Petitioner's evidence unconvincing. Opinion of Special Master at 11-12. 68 As discussed earlier, the Claims Court reviewed the decision of the special master, and chose to uphold the special master's findings and conclusions in toto. The Claims Court thus determined that the special master had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in reaching his fact-based findings and conclusions. Petitioner has made no showing that the Claims Court erred as a matter of law in this determination, and thus has failed to carry her burden on appeal.
69 Petitioner raises in addition two legal issues. These we review de novo. The first issue is whether the special master improperly considered the medical review prepared by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services; and second, whether the special master's finding that a hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode did occur within 3 days following vaccination mandates compensation. 70 In reaching his determination, the special master considered, inter alia, the medical review submitted by respondent. Petitioner objected to the admission into evidence of the review and argues that it should not have been admitted. Petitioner cites the Report and Recommendation for Judgment of the special master in Manley v. Secretary of the Dep't. of Health and Human Services, 18 Cl.Ct. 799, 803-16 (1989) for the proposition that the review was improperly admitted because it is inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Manley calls for application of the Federal Rules of Evidence to vaccine-injury cases. 71 Manley was decided November 16, 1989, i.e., before the effective date of the 1989 amendments to subchapter XIX. Before the 1989 amendments, § 300aa-12(c)(2) stated, in relevant part, that 72 [a] special master shall serve as an adjunct to the court, shall prepare and submit to the court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and may--(A) require such evidence as may be appropriate for the preparation of proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law.... 73 Since the 1989 amendments, the statute states that the procedural rules for practice before a special master shall: 74 (A) provide for a less-adversarial, expeditious, and informal proceeding for the resolution of petitions, (B) include flexible and informal standards of admissibility of evidence, ... (D) include the opportunity for parties to submit arguments and evidence on the record without requiring routine use of oral presentations, cross examination, or hearings.... 75 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(2). 76 Given this change in the statute, the evidentiary discussion in Manley is inapplicable. In revising the statute, Congress clearly determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence shall not be applied in vaccine-injury proceedings before a special master. We hold that the special master properly accepted the medical review into evidence. 14 77 The second legal question raised by Petitioner is whether the special master's finding that a hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode did occur within 3 days following vaccination mandates compensation. The answer is clearly no. In one of the early proposals for a national vaccine act, the finding of a table injury apparently would have mandated compensation. S. 827, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. § 2105 (1985) ([C]ompensation shall be provided under the Program if the first manifestation of the onset ... or significant aggravation of any such injury ... occurs within the time period ... as set forth in the [provided table].) However, the Program, as it currently exists, additionally requires that there not be a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was caused by factors unrelated to the vaccine. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). Thus, the injury is to be considered compensable (unless there is evidence to the contrary, as described above in Section 2113). H.Rep. No. 908, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 19, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6360 (§ 2114). The autopsy found that Chelsea died from the pneumonia, not from the administration of the vaccine, and the special master did not find that the vaccination rendered Chelsea more susceptible to the pneumonia. Therefore, under § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B), compensation was properly denied.IV. CONCLUSION 78 Petitioner failed to convince the special master that she met her statutory burden and was entitled to compensation. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate to the Claims Court that the decision of the special master was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Petitioner has not shown that the decision of the Claims Court was incorrect with regard to matters of law, or that the judgment of the Claims Court was otherwise in error under any applicable standard of review. Therefore, the judgment of the Claims Court is affirmed. 79 AFFIRMED. 80