Adams v. HHS - Hepatitis B, seizure disorder (2007)

On August 13, 2004, Petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 on behalf of a minor child, alleging a seizure disorder resulting from vaccinations. The child was born on January 30, 2001.

She received her first Hepatitis B vaccination on February 15, 2001, at two weeks old. Subsequent vaccinations included Hepatitis B, DTP, Hib, IPV, and Prevnar on March 30, 2001; DTP, Hib, and IPV on May 30, 2001; and IPV, DTP, Hib, and Prevnar on June 11, 2001.

On August 23, 2001, at seven months old, she received Hib, Hepatitis B, and Prevnar vaccinations. Approximately 12 hours later, on August 24, 2001, she experienced her first seizure, described as a full-body seizure lasting one to ten minutes with blue lips.

The initial diagnosis at the emergency room was "acute febrile seizure," though this was later questioned due to the absence of documented fever. Her pediatrician noted, "Seizure — doubt febrile — 0 documented ↑ temp. — ?

Prevnar related." Within two months, she had a second seizure, and by December 2001, after experiencing multiple seizures, including one lasting 30 minutes that required induced coma, a neurologist diagnosed a "seizure disorder." Over the next several years, the child experienced numerous seizures, and her condition progressed to what was described as an "intractable seizure disorder and progressive neurologic abnormalities." Petitioner's expert, Dr. Carlo Tornatore, proposed three theories of causation: molecular mimicry between vaccine antigens and neural tissue, toxin/metal interaction, and "kindling" (repeated immune insults lowering the seizure threshold).

He cited the child's high white blood cell count, her mother's history of hyperthyroidism, and the temporal proximity of the vaccinations to the onset of seizures. The respondent's expert, Dr.

Max Wiznitzer, concluded that the seizures were not a consequence of the immunizations. On November 27, 2006, the Special Master denied the claim, finding that the petitioner had not proven causation.

However, on January 18, 2007, the United States Court of Federal Claims, in a decision by Judge Braden, reversed the Special Master's ruling. The court found that the Special Master had engaged in improper ex parte communications with the government's expert and had introduced independent research evidence without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond, violating due process.

Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner had met her prima facie burden of proof under the Capizzano/Althen standard by presenting reliable medical theories, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccinations and the injury. The court also determined that the government had failed to establish alternative causation.

Specifically, the court noted that the government's expert did not definitively diagnose Dravet's Syndrome, and none of the treating physicians had made such a diagnosis. The court reversed the Special Master's decision and remanded the case for an award of compensation.