M.M. v. HHS - MMR, encephalopathy, developmental regression (2016)

On October 5, 2005, John and Barbara Murphy filed a petition on behalf of their minor son, M.M., alleging that the DTaP and MMR vaccines administered on October 14, 2002, caused an encephalopathy and subsequent developmental regression. M.M. was born in May 2001 and had received several DTaP vaccinations without notable reaction prior to October 2002.

The parents testified that within hours of the October 14, 2002, vaccination, M.M. exhibited high-pitched screaming, arching, and limpness, accompanied by a fever of 105 degrees, dilated pupils, a rash, and gastrointestinal issues. They also claimed M.M.'s language and pointing skills regressed.

However, contemporaneous medical records from an October 18, 2002, follow-up visit noted M.M. was fussy but afebrile, with no documented rash, seizure, or decreased level of consciousness. Subsequent records from December 2002 and May 2003 described M.M. as a well child, with concerns about language delay first documented in June 2003, approximately eight months post-vaccination.

The parents pursued various treatments, including chelation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen treatments, and consulted with Dr. Mary Megson, a developmental pediatrician, and Dr.

Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist. Dr.

Megson diagnosed vaccine-related encephalopathy, proposing a "perfect storm" causation theory involving M.M.'s alleged G-protein defect, MTHFR polymorphism, and the MMR vaccine's effect on the gut and blood-brain barrier. Dr.

Zimmerman's diagnosis also cited vaccine-related encephalopathy based on parental history, though he later suggested M.M. might have a mitochondrial disorder. Respondent's expert, Dr.

Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist, testified that the DTaP vaccine contains inactivated pertussis toxoid, not active toxin, and that M.M.'s symptoms were more consistent with injection pain and the natural progression of idiopathic autism. He stated M.M.'s MRIs were normal, and the timing of developmental regression was consistent with typical autism onset.

Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied the petition, finding that M.M. did not meet the criteria for an acute encephalopathy under the Vaccine Injury Table, as the reported symptoms were transient and not severe enough to require hospitalization.

He also found no evidence of chronic encephalopathy. For the non-Table claim, the Special Master found Petitioners' causation theory to be "facially and structurally weak," lacking reliable scientific support, and that Dr.

Megson lacked the necessary qualifications to opine on vaccine mechanisms. The temporal relationship between the vaccination and the alleged regression was also deemed too distant.

The Court of Federal Claims, in a decision reviewed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby, sustained the Special Master's decision, finding no clear error in his factual findings or legal conclusions. The court affirmed that the medical records did not support an encephalopathy diagnosis and that the causation theory was not sufficiently proven.

Petitioners' motion for review was denied.