• Entitlement denied in a case alleging MMR-caused Myoclonic-Astatic Epilepsy (also known as “Doose Syndrome”).   Analytical gaps between medical literature and expert’s theory were too great and too numerous to persuade.  Although molecular mimicry was a valid theory to explain some vaccine reactions, simply explaining how theory of molecular mimicry works with other diseases and purporting to show a connection between the MMR vaccination and the disease is insufficient to meet burden.  K.T. v. HHS, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sep. 8, 2016) (Hamilton-Fieldman, SM)
  • Special master correctly determined that “sensory dysesthesias” and “idiosyncratic severe reaction to vaccination” did not meet the Vaccine Act requirement of a “defined and recognized injury,” thus dismissal was appropriate.  Lasnetski v. HHS, (Fed. Cl. Sep. 9, 2016) (Horn, J)
  • Denial of entitlement in case alleging SLE post-Gardasil vaccine where expert theory was “overbroad, generalized, and vague, to the point that it could apply to virtually everyone in the world who has received a vaccine containing an adjuvant and then at some time in their lives developed an autoimmune disease.”  Further, no explanation was given to favor a temporally remote vaccine over a well-known environmental trigger.  Johnson v. HHS, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.18, 2016) (Hamilton-Fieldman, SM)

*Full decisions are available on the CFC website at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/

Vaccine Case Reviews Substantive Decisions – MMR and Gardasil Vaccines