Jean Yates v. HHS - Meningococcal, lymphocytic myocarditis and death (2020)

On June 30, 2014, Jean Yates, as representative for her deceased son, Robert Yates, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program. The petition alleged that a meningococcal conjugate (Menactra) vaccine administered on July 27, 2012, caused Robert's death from lymphocytic myocarditis three days later.

Robert, an 18-year-old with a history of autism and epilepsy, received his second dose of the Menactra vaccine during a routine physical. His mother found him unresponsive at home on July 30, 2012, and despite resuscitation efforts, he was pronounced dead.

The autopsy attributed his death to lymphocytic myocarditis. Petitioner's experts, Dr.

Anthony Chang and Dr. Laurel Waters, theorized that the vaccine caused an acute hypersensitivity reaction leading to myocarditis and death, citing Robert's elevated eosinophil count on the day of vaccination and the vaccine's T-lymphocyte mediated response.

Respondent's experts, Dr. Scott Yeager and Dr.

Rebecca Folkerth, argued that lymphocytic myocarditis is typically viral in origin and that the absence of eosinophils in Robert's heart tissue precluded a diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis. They concluded that a viral infection was the more likely cause of death.

The Special Master denied entitlement, finding that petitioner failed to establish a reliable medical theory connecting the vaccine to lymphocytic myocarditis and that the evidence favored a viral etiology. The Special Master's decision was affirmed by the Court of Federal Claims, which found no abuse of discretion and agreed that petitioner had not proven causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court noted that the autopsy showed lymphocytic infiltrate in the heart tissue, with no evidence of eosinophils, supporting a viral cause rather than a hypersensitivity reaction. The court also found that petitioner's experts' theories were not supported by the medical literature and that the temporal relationship between the vaccination and death was insufficient to establish causation.

The court ultimately denied the motion for review.