Hayley Stricker v. HHS - HPV, systemic lupus erythematosus (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Hayley Stricker, born in 1993, received the first dose of the HPV vaccine on September 29, 2015. She alleged that this vaccine caused her to develop systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
Her mother has multiple sclerosis, a condition that could increase susceptibility to autoimmune diseases. Before vaccination, Ms.
Stricker had acne treated with minocycline and doxycycline, and she had contracted the human papillomavirus (HPV). Approximately one month after vaccination, around November 1, 2015, she began experiencing symptoms such as joint pain, rash, and fatigue, which interfered with her dental hygienist training.
She was diagnosed with a connective tissue disease in December 2015, and this diagnosis was later changed to SLE in December 2018 after a blood test revealed a double-stranded DNA antibody. Ms.
Stricker's claim was based on the theory of molecular mimicry, arguing that the HPV vaccine's components resembled human tissue, triggering an autoimmune response. The respondent argued that Ms.
Stricker's SLE was either drug-induced from her acne medication or spontaneously occurring. The Special Master denied compensation, finding that Ms.
Stricker failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HPV vaccine caused her SLE. The Special Master reviewed numerous epidemiologic studies, most of which did not show an increased incidence of SLE following HPV vaccination.
The studies that did suggest a link were found to be unreliable due to flawed methodology or questionable authors. The Special Master also found the theory of molecular mimicry unpersuasive, as Ms.
Stricker did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the vaccine and SLE. Furthermore, the Special Master considered alternative causes, finding that tetracycline use was a more likely explanation for her condition than the vaccine, although not definitively proven.
The court affirmed the Special Master's decision, finding no legal errors and that the Special Master appropriately weighed the evidence and expert testimony.