Richard Piscopo v. HHS - Hepatitis B, immune disorder (2005)

Richard Piscopo filed a petition on April 20, 2001, alleging that vaccinations he received in preparation for overseas travel caused him to develop immune system dysfunction. In the spring and summer of 1998, Mr.

Piscopo received a large number of vaccines in rapid succession, including hepatitis B, typhoid, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, tetanus, inactivated polio, and hepatitis A. Several of these vaccines — including rabies, Japanese encephalitis, and typhoid — are not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Mr. Piscopo's legal theory was that the hepatitis B vaccine specifically caused his immunological illness.

To support his causation theory, Mr. Piscopo relied on testimony from Dr.

Mark Geier. The special master rejected Dr.

Geier as an unqualified expert witness in immunology: Dr. Geier's professional background was in genetics and obstetrics/gynecology, not immunology or the relevant subject-matter area, and he had been criticized repeatedly in prior vaccine proceedings for offering opinions outside his expertise.

Without competent expert medical testimony, Mr. Piscopo's causation theory had no evidentiary support.

A further and independent problem with Mr. Piscopo's claim was his failure to address the multiple-vaccine attribution issue.

Because he received vaccines not covered by the Vaccine Act at the same time as the hepatitis B vaccine he blamed, he was required to provide evidence ruling out those non-Table vaccines as the cause of his illness before the hepatitis B vaccine could be held responsible. He offered no such evidence.

When the special master raised this problem and invited petitioner to address it or retain a new expert, Mr. Piscopo declined and stated he would not engage another expert witness.

Judge Firestone, writing for the Court of Federal Claims on May 26, 2005, affirmed the special master's decision and denied the motion for review. The court upheld the exclusion of Dr.

Geier, noting his pattern of exclusion across similar vaccine cases and his lack of qualifications in the relevant field. The court further held that petitioner had failed to establish that the hepatitis B vaccine — as distinct from the other concurrently administered vaccines outside the Vaccine Act's coverage — was the cause of his illness.

Without competent expert testimony or any evidence addressing the multiple-vaccine attribution problem, Mr. Piscopo could not carry his burden of proof under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and the dismissal was affirmed.