Christine Maupin v. HHS - DTaP, infantile spasms and developmental delays (2025)

Christine Maupin filed a petition on April 18, 2023, on behalf of her minor child, B.M., alleging that the DTaP, Hepatitis B, IPV, and rotavirus vaccines administered on August 19, 2021, caused B.M. to suffer from infantile spasms and developmental delays. The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Petitioner's counsel was Jessica Wallace of Siri & Glimstad, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Camille Jordan Webster of the United States Department of Justice. Special Master Christian J.

Moran presided over the case. Initially, the petitioner pursued the claim, submitting an expert report from pediatric neurologist and geneticist Dr.

Huq. Dr.

Huq opined that B.M.'s brain abnormalities made her susceptible to seizures, but that vaccine-induced brain inflammation also played a significant role in her condition. He stated that if brain abnormalities alone were responsible, the spasms would have been more severe and tractable.

Dr. Huq acknowledged pre-vaccination seizure-like eye movements but considered them not concerning enough to be discussed with a medical provider and likely normal.

The respondent's experts, pediatric neurologist Dr. Kruer and pediatric immunologist Dr.

McCusker, countered these opinions. Dr.

Kruer questioned Dr. Huq's assessment of pre-vaccination symptoms and argued that B.M.'s brain malformation, a frequent cause of infantile spasms, alone accounted for her condition.

He stated there was no evidence of brain inflammation and that the timing of the spasms was not compatible with vaccine-induced immune responses. Dr.

McCusker concluded that data did not support epilepsy-causing potential from peripherally released cytokines following vaccination and that evidence suggests endogenous IL1β production following seizures, not vaccination, leads to neuroinflammation. He also noted B.M. was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS), not autoimmune encephalopathy, and found no evidence of autoimmune epilepsy secondary to molecular mimicry.

Dr. McCusker stated that large studies do not support an etiological link between vaccination and epilepsy onset, with events like IESS occurring independently of vaccination.

Petitioner filed a supplemental report from Dr. Huq, who maintained his opinion, addressing the respondent's experts.

However, on April 14, 2025, Ms. Maupin filed a status report indicating a rupture in the attorney-client relationship due to differing opinions on how to proceed.

After seeking new counsel and additional time, Ms. Maupin filed a motion to dismiss her petition on July 30, 2025.

The Special Master construed this as a motion for involuntary dismissal. The Special Master noted that to prove causation under the Althen prongs, a petitioner must show a medical theory connecting vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship.

The Special Master found that Ms. Maupin had not met her burden under the second Althen prong, specifically regarding the pre-vaccination eye movements, as Dr.

Huq did not adequately support his opinion that they were unrelated to a seizure condition. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof, and no compensation was awarded.