Liang Zhao v. HHS - Rotavirus, intussusception (2023)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On May 17, 2019, Liang Zhao, as the parent and natural guardian of G.L., a minor child, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. G.L. was born on May 17, 2016.
On November 18, 2016, at his six-month well-child visit, G.L. received his third rotavirus vaccine, along with DTaP-Hib-IPV, hepatitis B, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Twelve days later, on November 30, 2016, G.L.'s mother reported he was not eating and was crying.
His vomiting continued, and he developed bloody, "strawberry jelly"-like stool. G.L. was taken to the Children's Hospital of New Orleans, where an abdominal ultrasound revealed intussusception.
A water-soluble contrast enema reduced the intussusception on December 1, 2016. Approximately twelve hours later, G.L. had a recurrence that was also reduced by contrast enema.
He was discharged on December 3, 2016. On December 6, 2016, an ultrasound showed a transient small-bowel intussusception that was resolving on its own.
At a surgical follow-up on December 28, 2016, Dr. David Yu noted that G.L. was tolerating a regular diet with good bowel function.
The petition alleged that G.L. suffered from intussusception after receiving the third rotavirus vaccine. The respondent argued that G.L.'s intussusception did not meet the Vaccine Injury Table criteria for the third dose and that G.L. did not satisfy the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement.
Petitioner relied on the opinion of Dr. Thomas Sferra, who opined that G.L.'s later functional constipation was a residual effect of the intussusception.
Respondent's expert, Dr. Chris Liacouras, disagreed, explaining that functional constipation is common in infants and toddlers and is not caused by resolved intussusception without chronic bowel damage.
Treating physicians Dr. Linda DeLessio and Dr.
Catherine Degeeter also informed the family that G.L.'s constipation was not due to his history of intussusception. Special Master Thomas L.
Gowen issued a decision on January 25, 2023, dismissing the petition. He found that the intussusception episodes resolved within days, that the contrast enemas were non-surgical interventions, and that the medical records did not show residual effects or complications lasting more than six months.
No compensation was awarded. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J.
Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Felicia Langel.
Theory of causation
Petitioner alleged that G.L. suffered intussusception following his third rotavirus vaccine on November 18, 2016, and that this resulted in ongoing functional constipation for more than six months, thus meeting the Vaccine Act's severity requirement. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Thomas Sferra, opined that G.L.'s functional constipation was a residual effect of the intussusception, potentially triggered by an adverse process affecting the bowel. Respondent argued that the intussusception was not a Table injury for the third dose and that G.L. did not meet the six-month severity requirement, as the intussusception resolved within days with non-surgical contrast enemas and showed no chronic residual effects. Respondent's expert, Dr. Chris Liacouras, stated that functional constipation is common and unrelated to resolved intussusception without chronic damage, a view supported by treating physicians Dr. Linda DeLessio and Dr. Catherine Degeeter, who did not attribute G.L.'s constipation to his intussusception history. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen dismissed the petition on January 25, 2023, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate by preponderant evidence that G.L. suffered residual effects or complications for more than six months after vaccination, as the intussusception resolved quickly and subsequent constipation was not causally linked. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller, and respondent by Felicia Langel.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00735