Christina Anderson v. HHS - Influenza, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Christina Anderson, through her mother Noelle Anderson, filed a petition on July 9, 2020, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 4, 2017, when she was 11 years old, caused her to develop anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. The Secretary of Health and Human Services disputed the claim.
The case was decided by Special Master Christian J. Moran.
The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, onset, or progression of Ms. Anderson's condition in detail, but notes that approximately two weeks after vaccination, she began experiencing symptoms including a sore throat, nausea, headache, and cough, which progressed over the following weeks, leading to multiple hospitalizations.
Doctors considered various diagnoses, including viral syndrome, encephalitis, and migraine, and noted a positive FANA test. Eventually, her condition was diagnosed by some physicians as anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, supported by a positive serum test for NMDA receptor antibodies, although cerebrospinal fluid tests were negative.
Petitioner retained Dr. Lawrence Steinman, a neurologist, to support her claim.
The Secretary retained Dr. Eric Lancaster, a neurologist specializing in antibody-mediated neurologic disorders, to support his position.
The parties disputed both the diagnosis of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and the causation between the flu vaccine and the condition. Special Master Moran found that Ms.
Anderson failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and that the flu vaccine caused it. The decision focused on two main issues: diagnosis and causation.
Regarding the diagnosis, the Special Master found that Ms. Anderson did not meet the diagnostic criteria for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, particularly noting the negative cerebrospinal fluid tests and crediting Dr.
Lancaster's opinion over Dr. Steinman's due to Dr.
Lancaster's greater expertise in the condition. Regarding causation, the Special Master examined Ms.
Anderson's theory of molecular mimicry, which suggests that a vaccine component mimics human tissue, causing the immune system to attack the body. The Special Master found this theory unpersuasive in this case, citing the lack of specific evidence linking the flu vaccine to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, the commonness of amino acid homologies, and the inadequacy of the proposed mechanism to explain the generation of specific antibodies.
The Special Master concluded that Ms. Anderson did not establish either the diagnosis or causation by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore denied compensation.
The decision was issued on November 26, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP.
Respondent's counsel was Andrew J. Henning and Neil Bhargava of the United States Dep’t of Justice.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Christina Anderson alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on September 4, 2017, caused her to develop anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Lawrence Steinman, proposed the theory of molecular mimicry, suggesting that a component of the flu vaccine shares amino acid sequences with the NMDA receptor, leading the immune system to attack the body's own tissues. Dr. Steinman identified a sequence with 6 identical amino acids out of 12, using BLAST searches, and consulted the immune epitope database (IEDB). Respondent's expert, Dr. Eric Lancaster, a specialist in antibody-mediated neurologic disorders, disputed this theory. Dr. Lancaster argued that short amino acid homologies are common and not reliable predictors of autoimmunity, that the scientific community generally considers homologies up to 8 amino acids not significant, and that Dr. Steinman's theory did not adequately explain the generation of the specific antibodies involved in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Dr. Lancaster also noted that the IEDB is a broad record of reactions and does not specifically link the flu vaccine to this condition. The Special Master, Christian J. Moran, found Dr. Lancaster's expertise more relevant to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. The Special Master concluded that Ms. Anderson failed to establish a persuasive theory of causation, citing the lack of specific evidence linking the flu vaccine to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, the commonness of amino acid homologies, and the inadequacy of the molecular mimicry theory as presented to explain the specific antibody generation. The case was denied on the merits, with compensation denied. Petitioner's counsel was Leigh Finfer; respondent's counsel was Andrew J. Henning and Neil Bhargava. The decision date was November 26, 2024.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00830