Court Opinion

ID: 9399813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 16:05:15.895266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.450854
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                            No. 16-1494V

*************************
EBONIE WEAVER                     *
parent of T.M. a minor,           *                                      Filed: May 8, 2023
                                  *
                      Petitioner, *
                                  *
               v.                 *
                                  *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND           *
HUMAN SERVICES,                   *
                                  *
                      Respondent. *
                                  *
*************************

Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Megan R. Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                               REMAND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
        On November 14, 2016, Ebonie Weaver, on behalf of her minor daughter, T.M., filed a
Petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”), 2
alleging that as a result of receiving several vaccines on December 10, 2013, T.M. experienced a
seizure disorder and a significant worsening of her preexisting developmental delays, due to a
single, initial, vaccine-induced febrile seizure. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1–2, 40.

       An entitlement hearing in the matter was held on February 9–10, 2022, at which time I
heard fact testimony as well as the opinions of two testifying experts (with the second of

1
  The parties may object to the published Ruling’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically,
under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the entire Ruling will be available to the public in
its current form. Id.
2
 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
Petitioner’s experts only offering written expert reports). I found Petitioner not entitled to
compensation. Decision, dated September 23, 2022 (ECF No. 81) (the “Decision”). In particular, 3
I determined that Petitioner had established that the vaccines T.M. received could cause febrile
seizures (as well as seizure disorders caused by an initial, vaccine-related febrile seizure), and that
she experienced such a seizure as well (which occurred in a medically acceptable timeframe)—
but that Petitioner had not also preponderantly demonstrated that the vaccine-caused febrile seizure
T.M. had experienced was also responsible for T.M.’s subsequent seizure disorder. Decision at
33–35. Thus, Petitioner had only satisfied two of the three of the causation prongs set forth in
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). I also found that
Petitioner’s significant aggravation claim (that her pre-vaccination developmental issues were
worsened by the febrile seizure) was unsuccessful for similar reasons. Id. at 35–36. Otherwise, I
found that the first three prongs of the test for significant aggravation (under Loving v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (2009)) had been met. Id. at 35 n.21.

       Petitioner sought review of my Decision and was successful. See Order, dated February
24, 2023 (ECF No. 89) (the “Remand Order”). The Remand Order reversed my Althen prong two
finding, determining that Petitioner had established entitlement on her causation claim as a result.
But the Court left unresolved whether Petitioner had met Loving prongs five and six, based on the
Court’s Althen prong two determination plus the fact that I did not in my decision explicitly address
whether the sixth Loving factor had been satisfied (Remand Order at 1 n.10).

         On remand, I ordered Respondent to show cause why I should not rule favorably on
entitlement on the significant aggravation claim as well. Order to Show Cause, dated February 27,
2023 (ECF No. 90). I noted in particular that because I already had determined (implicitly) in my
original Decision that the third Althen prong had been met, it was likely I could also find based on
that same record that the timing of Petitioner’s developmental worsening after her first febrile
seizure (admittedly induced by vaccination) was also medically acceptable. Respondent reacted to
my Order to Show Cause on March 31, 2023. ECF No. 97. He represents therein that the reversal
of my Althen prong two finding “would also necessitate a finding for petitioner under Loving prong
five.” ECF No. 97 at 2. He did not, however, address the sixth Loving prong. Petitioner has not
filed a responsive brief of her own.

        In light of Respondent’s reaction to the Order to Show Cause, and based upon my own
review of the record in the wake of the Remand Order, I hereby find entitlement for Petitioner on
all claims asserted in this matter, to the extent not addressed or resolved in the Remand Order.
Regarding significant aggravation, I note that since the Court has construed the record to support
the theory that T.M.’s initial (and unquestionably-established) vaccine-caused febrile seizure was
a substantial factor for all that came after, and therefore a basis for vaccine compensation, that

3
  Although the Decision has been vacated, I incorporate by reference my summary of the medical records and trial
testimony from that document—especially since the Court took less issue with the specifics of those determinations
than how I ultimately weighed those facts, and accepted some of my Althen determinations as well.

                                                        2
same view of the record also supports the determination that T.M.’s preexisting developmental
problems were similarly caused to worsen post-vaccination due to the same single vaccine-caused
seizure. I also find that (with respect to Loving prong six) the timeframe for worsening of
Petitioner’s preexisting developmental issues was medically acceptable when measured from the
date of vaccination, consistent with my Althen prong three determination. The record reveals
T.M.’s developmental issues were observed throughout the spring of 2014, concurrent with her
experiencing more regular febrile seizures. See Decision at 5–8. And Petitioner’s experts offered
reasonable, sufficiently-persuasive testimony to conclude that this timeframe of worsening was
medically acceptable. Id. at 15–16.

        Petitioner has prevailed in this case. An order setting forth a process for resolving damages
shall issue hereafter. Any questions regarding this Ruling may be directed to my law clerk,
Madison Atkinson, at madison_atkinson@cfc.uscourts.gov.

   IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                              /s/ Brian H. Corcoran
                                                                Brian H. Corcoran
                                                                Chief Special Master

                                                 3