Patricia Stewart-Robinson v. HHS - Influenza, multiple sclerosis (2024)

On April 28, 2022, Patricia Stewart-Robinson filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 25, 2019, caused her to develop transverse myelitis (TM) and subsequently multiple sclerosis (MS). Ms.

Stewart-Robinson, who was 53 years old at the time of vaccination, began experiencing numbness and tingling in her lower extremities approximately two weeks after receiving the vaccine. Her symptoms progressed, leading to hospitalization where she was initially diagnosed with TM.

However, subsequent testing and clinical evaluations over the following months led to a diagnosis of MS. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, opposed an award of compensation, arguing that MS is unlikely to be caused by the flu vaccine and that the medical record indicated Ms.

Stewart-Robinson's TM was an initial symptom of MS, not a separate injury. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss. He concluded that Ms.

Stewart-Robinson's TM was not a distinct injury but rather the first manifestation of MS, and that MS is not likely vaccine-caused. He based this decision on his prior experience with similar cases, stating that he had never found MS to be a vaccine injury and was highly skeptical of such claims, and that he expected any expert report would likely repeat arguments he had previously rejected.

He dismissed the case before Ms. Stewart-Robinson could submit an expert report to support her causation theory.

Ms. Stewart-Robinson sought review of this decision.

On October 8, 2024, Judge Molly R. Silfen of the U.S.

Court of Federal Claims found that the Special Master had abused his discretion by prematurely dismissing the case and denying Ms. Stewart-Robinson the opportunity to present expert testimony.

The court noted that while Special Masters can rely on their expertise, they cannot exclusively rely on prior cases to dismiss a claim without allowing the petitioner to fully develop their case, especially in off-Table injury claims where expert testimony is often crucial. The court emphasized that each case must be evaluated on its own merits and that denying the opportunity to submit an expert report prevented Ms.

Stewart-Robinson from fully presenting her case. The court granted Ms.

Stewart-Robinson's motion for review, vacated the Special Master's decision, and remanded the case to the Special Master to allow Ms. Stewart-Robinson the opportunity to present her case, including expert testimony.

The ultimate outcome of the case remains to be determined.