Sharnise Skinner v. HHS - DPT/DTP, encephalopathy (1994)

Petitioners, the parents of Sharnise Skinner, sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program, alleging that a DPT vaccination administered on April 17, 1985, caused encephalopathy. Sharnise Skinner was born on October 1, 1984.

She received DPT immunizations on November 27, 1984, and January 31, 1985, without incident. Following the third DPT immunization on April 17, 1985, there is a conflict in the record regarding the timing and extent of changes in her development.

By August 14, 1985, Sharnise had lost some previously acquired skills and exhibited neurological signs, leading to a diagnosis of a significant brain disorder. Petitioners alleged Sharnise manifested the first symptoms of an encephalopathy within three days of the April 17, 1985 vaccination, seeking compensation as a "Table Injury" or by proving causation-in-fact.

The Special Master denied the claim, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate entitlement. The Special Master employed a two-stage process, first hearing testimony from lay witnesses to determine if their account of events was credible and supported by medical records.

Petitioners and family friends testified that Sharnise experienced an abrupt change the day after the vaccination, losing developmental milestones. However, the Special Master found this testimony unreliable and in conflict with contemporaneous medical records.

A pediatric visit three weeks after the vaccination noted only a weight issue, not developmental regression. A neurologist's record from September 11, 1985, stated that Sharnise had low-grade fever and irritability for one day after the shot, seemed normal otherwise, and that her mother first became aware of developmental problems around eight months of age, approximately one month after the vaccination.

Petitioners' expert, Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne, based his opinion on the assumption of an abrupt loss of skills within 72 hours of vaccination.

The Special Master found this factual premise unproven and therefore deemed Dr. Kinsbourne's opinion unhelpful for both the "Table Injury" and causation-in-fact issues.

The United States Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master's decision on February 2, 1994, holding that the Special Master's reliance on contemporaneous medical records over later lay testimony was not arbitrary or capricious. No compensation was awarded.

The public decision does not describe the specific clinical story beyond the developmental regression, nor does it name the attorneys involved.