Christopher Murphy v. HHS - DPT/DTP, seizures following a DPT vaccination which triggered the advancement of tuberous sclerosis (TB) (1993)

On September 5, 1990, Rexford Murphy and Debbie Fields Murphy, as petitioners, filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 on behalf of their minor son, Christopher Murphy. They alleged that Christopher suffered seizures following a DPT vaccination, which they claimed triggered the advancement of tuberous sclerosis (TB), resulting in severe handicaps.

Special Master Paul T. Baird initially dismissed the claim without an evidentiary hearing.

However, he allowed the petitioners multiple opportunities to submit additional evidence, including expert statements and Mrs. Murphy's diary.

Despite these submissions, and after expressing an inclination to deny the claim, the Special Master ultimately denied compensation on April 25, 1991. The Special Master found that the medical records and other written evidence contradicted the petitioners' claims.

Specifically, the medical records did not support the contention that the injury onset occurred within three days of the vaccination, and a pre-litigation questionnaire completed by Mrs. Murphy denied any reaction to the vaccination.

Petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Federal Claims, which sustained the Special Master's decision. This decision was affirmed summarily by the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Subsequently, on July 6, 1993, the petitioners filed an application for attorneys' fees and costs. The Special Master denied this application, reiterating that the original claim lacked a reasonable basis and good faith, finding that the evidence contradicted the petitioners' assertions.

The Court of Federal Claims reviewed this denial of fees under an abuse of discretion standard. The court agreed with the respondent that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof in establishing good faith and a reasonable basis for their claim.

The court noted that the expert testimony submitted by the petitioners was based on Mrs. Murphy's version of events, which the Special Master had found unreliable.

The court concluded that the Special Master did not abuse his discretion in denying attorneys' fees and costs, as the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The Clerk of the Court was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

No costs were awarded on review.