Patricia Koapke v. HHS - Rotavirus, intussusception (2022)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Patricia Koapke, as the parent and natural guardian of her minor son W.K., filed a petition on May 29, 2019, alleging that the rotavirus vaccine administered on September 16, 2019, caused W.K. to develop intussusception. Initially, the claim was pursued as a Table claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
However, this claim was dismissed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 15, 2021, because W.K.'s symptoms began 26-28 days after vaccination, which falls outside the 1-21 day onset timeframe specified for intussusception on the Vaccine Injury Table.
The Special Master granted Petitioner an opportunity to show cause why the case should proceed as a non-Table, causation-in-fact claim, requiring her to provide a medical or scientific basis for a longer onset period. Petitioner filed an amended petition on September 29, 2021, alleging causation-in-fact.
However, Petitioner failed to provide any evidence, such as expert reports or medical literature, to support the contention that intussusception could medically be acceptable as a vaccine injury with an onset beyond the Table's timeframe. Respondent, represented by Sarah Christina Duncan of the U.S.
Department of Justice, argued that symptoms typically occur within seven days and pointed to alternative causes for W.K.'s condition, such as his prolapsed appendix and a nodular lesion in his bowel. Special Master Corcoran found that due to the unique nature of intussusception and the scientific evidence supporting only a short onset window, a longer onset timeframe was not medically reasonable.
The Special Master noted that while the Table claim allows for a 21-day window, the scientific evidence best supported an increased risk only one to seven days following vaccination. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms W.K. experienced, any diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received.
The Special Master concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated any basis for a longer onset period and that expert input was unlikely to be fruitful. Consequently, the Special Master dismissed the causation-in-fact claim on July 7, 2022, and the case was dismissed.
Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP.