Kerri Woodard v. HHS - DPT/DTP, infantile spasms (1994)

On September 25, 1990, Diane and Robert Woodard filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on behalf of their daughter, Kerri, alleging that she suffered a significant aggravation of her infantile spasms within three days after her second and third administrations of the DPT vaccine. Kerri Woodard, who is now 13 years old, suffers from severe retardation and lives at home with her parents.

She cannot speak normally, is not potty-trained, and is unable to feed herself. Kerri was born on March 23, 1981.

She received her first DPT vaccine on July 13, 1981, at nearly four months old, with no reported adverse reactions. Petitioners testified that shortly after this first shot, Kerri began having spells or spasms lasting a few seconds, during which she would lift her arms and heave a sigh.

They also testified that over the summer, Kerri lost interest in toys and became less physically active. They reported these issues to their pediatrician during Kerri's second DPT vaccination on August 31, 1981.

The pediatrician's charts from this visit record the DPT shot but do not mention the alleged conversation about Kerri's spells or the doctor's purported diagnosis of an immature nervous system. Following the second shot, Kerri slept deeply for at least 16 hours.

In the weeks after this vaccination, Kerri's parents observed developmental regression, including cessation of babbling and cooing, lack of interest in toys, and reduced alertness. Kerri received her third DPT shot on October 16, 1981, by which time her parents reported she was having spasms three to five times per week.

During this visit, the pediatrician's records noted "slow gross motor" activity, "poor reach," and possible hearing problems. Petitioners testified that in the three days immediately following the third DPT shot, Kerri's spasms continued without change in frequency or severity.

However, Kerri's aunt testified that she observed an unusual seizure on October 19, three days after the third shot, where Kerri stiffened and her eyes rolled back. The aunt did not report this to the parents, believing they were aware.

The next day, October 20, Kerri's mother observed a similar dramatic seizure, prompting a call to the doctor. Kerri was admitted to the hospital on October 21, 1981, where doctors diagnosed her with infantile spasms.

Hospital records from this admission indicated that Kerri's parents first noticed her seizures about three weeks prior to October 21, and that her development ceased progressing normally after she was three months old (around June 23, 1981), prior to her first DPT shot. The records also indicated that her condition worsened significantly at the end of September or beginning of October, after her second DPT shot and before her third.

This contradicted the parents' testimony that Kerri's developmental problems and seizures began after her first DPT shot. The Special Master gave more weight to the contemporaneous hospital records than to the parents' oral testimony.

The Special Master concluded that Kerri did not suffer a significant aggravation of her infantile spasms within the three-day Table period following either the second or third DPT shot. He found that the eye-rolling episodes observed on October 19 and 20, while more dramatic, did not represent a significant aggravation.

Regarding the second DPT shot, the only evidence of an adverse reaction was Kerri's prolonged sleep, which the Special Master found did not indicate an injury or aggravation. The Special Master also found that the evidence did not support a finding of aggravation outside the Table period.

He relied on expert testimony from Dr. Lawrence Lockman, who contradicted the petitioners' expert, Dr.

Harvey Bennett. Dr.

Bennett's opinion was found to be inconsistent, particularly his reliance on medical literature that did not support a causal link between the DPT vaccine and infantile spasms, and his admission that he could not predict Kerri's outcome with medical certainty given the lack of early treatment. The Special Master concluded that petitioners had not demonstrated a logical sequence of cause and effect supported by a reputable medical or scientific explanation.

The court affirmed the Special Master's decision, finding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The petition was denied.