A.W. v. HHS - DTaP, food allergies and atopic dermatitis (eczema) (2018)

A.W., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian, Vanessa Wood, filed a petition, alleging that a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccination caused the minor's food allergies and atopic dermatitis (eczema). A.W. was born in October 2012 and received her first DTaP vaccine on or around January 2, 2013, at approximately two months old.

Ms. Wood testified that a rash began about a week after vaccination, which worsened and was diagnosed as eczema.

Subsequent allergy testing indicated allergies to cow's milk and eggs. The petitioner's expert, Dr.

Vera Byers, theorized that trace amounts of beef residue in the DTaP vaccine, combined with a cytokine response, led to sensitization and an allergy to beef, which in turn caused the eczema. Respondent's expert, Dr.

Andrew MacGinnitie, presented evidence contradicting this theory, including studies showing no link between vaccines and food allergies or eczema, and noted that A.W.'s treating doctors did not link the conditions to vaccination. Special Master Christian J.

Moran issued a bench decision denying compensation, later formalized in a published decision on March 5, 2018. The Special Master found that Dr.

Byers was relatively unqualified compared to Dr. MacGinnitie, who was board-certified in immunology and allergy, actively treated patients with these conditions, and held an associate professorship at Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Byers had stopped regular practice in 2002 and primarily saw patients in legal contexts.

The court found Dr. Byers's testimony to be unqualified, her theories unsupported, inconsistent, and introduced late in the proceedings.

Specifically, her initial theory about egg protein in the vaccine was disproven, and her later theory about beef residue lacked scientific backing and was not disclosed in her reports. The court also noted that the timing of symptom onset did not align with the proposed causal mechanism.

The petition was denied, as the petitioner failed to establish causation on a more-likely-than-not basis under the Althen prongs.