Spratling v. HHS - IPV/Polio, paralysis (1997)

An unnamed petitioner filed for vaccine compensation on September 26, 1990, alleging she received a polio vaccine in August or September 1958 and suffered paralysis as a result. On May 14, 1995, the Chief Special Master held a hearing solely to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that petitioner had received an oral polio vaccine (OPV) or an inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) at the time alleged.

On November 15, 1996, the Chief Special Master issued a Decision and Order finding that there was no credible evidence petitioner had received an OPV, because OPV was not available in the United States until several years after 1958. The Chief Special Master further found that the lay evidence was insufficient to overcome the medical record evidence indicating no vaccine had been received at the time alleged.

The record was left open for petitioner to submit additional expert evidence by January 15, 1997. No final judgment was entered, and the underlying petition remained pending.

On December 12, 1996, petitioner filed a motion seeking review of the Chief Special Master's interim decision. The court identified this as a matter of first impression — no prior case had addressed whether the Court of Federal Claims may review interim decisions of the special masters.

Judge Robinson dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Section 300aa-12(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act provides that parties have 30 days to file a motion for review "[u]pon issuance of the special master's decision." The Act further provides that in the absence of such a motion, the clerk shall immediately enter judgment in accordance with the special master's decision.

Because the Chief Special Master's November 15, 1996, order held the record open and contemplated further proceedings, it was not a final decision and the clerk could not have entered final judgment on it. The court reasoned that reviewing interim decisions would unduly interfere with the special master's conduct of proceedings and subject vaccine cases to piecemeal appellate review, contrary to the statute's requirements of expeditious proceedings.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice.