{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195-cl6645489","petitioner_identifier":"Daniel Black","is_minor":1,"age_at_vaccination":0.43,"age_unit_raw":"years (about five months old)","vaccine_type":"DPT","vaccination_date":"1984-12-14","condition_raw":"encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder","condition_category":"seizure_disorder","autism_spectrum_adjacent":1,"outcome":"dismissed","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"1995-05-30","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:09:32.863631+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":1,"dose_number":2,"time_to_onset_days":0,"theory_of_causation":"Petitioner Daniel Black, born July 10, 1984, received a DPT vaccination on December 14, 1984, at approximately five months of age. Within hours, he allegedly developed encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder, with severe seizures persisting for 18 months despite medication, and resulting in gross and fine motor impairment. The petition was filed on October 1, 1990, by his father, Dennis Lee Black. The case was dismissed by Special Master Richard B. Abell on January 20, 1995, and affirmed by Judge Yock on May 30, 1995, not on the merits of causation, but due to failure to meet the statutory jurisdictional threshold of incurring over $1,000 in unreimbursable expenses prior to filing. Daniel's medical care was primarily covered by the Indian Health Service, rendering most expenses unreimbursable. The only documented unreimbursable expense incurred before filing was $814.15, which was below the $1,000 requirement. Petitioner's arguments regarding the interpretation of \"incurred expenses,\" absurd results, due process, and equal protection were rejected. No experts were named in the provided text, and the mechanism of injury was not discussed as the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":"1990-10-01","case_summary":"On October 1, 1990, Dennis Lee Black filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of his son, Daniel Black, who was born on July 10, 1984. Daniel Black received his second diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccination on December 14, 1984, at approximately five months of age. According to the petition, within hours of the vaccination, Daniel experienced the first manifestations of vaccine-related encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder. His seizures were severe and continued for the next year and a half, despite treatment with antiepileptic medications. He was left with a residual seizure disorder and gross and fine motor impairment. The petition alleged that these conditions were a direct result of the DPT vaccination.\n\nThe Vaccine Act requires petitioners to demonstrate, among other things, that they incurred unreimbursable expenses exceeding $1,000 due to the vaccine-related injury. The Special Master, Richard B. Abell, dismissed the petition on January 20, 1995, finding that the petitioner had not provided sufficient documentation to meet this jurisdictional prerequisite. Daniel Black's medical care had been largely paid for by the Indian Health Service and other sources, meaning the expenses were not unreimbursable. The only unreimbursable expense documented prior to the filing date of October 1, 1990, was $814.15, which fell short of the $1,000 threshold.\n\nPetitioner Dennis Lee Black sought review by the United States Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the Special Master erred in interpreting \"incurred unreimbursable expenses\" to mean expenses actually paid before filing, that this interpretation led to an absurd result, and that it violated due process and equal protection rights. Judge Yock, reviewing the case, affirmed the Special Master's decision on May 30, 1995. The court held that the statutory language requiring expenses to be \"incurred\" prior to filing was plain and unambiguous. It clarified that \"incurred\" means becoming liable for an expense, not necessarily paying it, but that the liability must exist before the petition is filed. The court noted that the $814.15 expense was the only one incurred before the filing date that met the unreimbursable criteria. The court also rejected the argument that the dismissal produced an absurd or unfair result, stating that while the outcome might be harsh for those whose medical care is covered, the statute's language was clear and Congress had established a financial threshold as a measure of severity. The court found no violation of due process, as Daniel Black never met the eligibility requirements and thus never possessed a property interest that could be deprived. The equal protection claim was also rejected, as the court found no explicit racial classification and that the disparate impact on Native Americans, due to their free healthcare coverage, did not alone violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court concluded that the Special Master's decision was legally correct and affirmed the dismissal. No ruling was made on the merits of causation or entitlement, and no compensation was awarded.","is_minor_inferred":0,"is_pediatric_broad":1,"special_master":"Richard B. Abell","petitioner_identifier_original":null,"caption_petitioner_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_firm":null,"petitioner_attorney_location":null,"adjudicator_name":null,"caption_people_backfilled_at":null,"attorney_canonical_keys":null,"firm_canonical_key":null,"package_title":"Black v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195-cl6645489","title":"Black v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"1995-05-30","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6762749/black-v-secretary-of-the-department-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6645489 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-03195-cl6645489"}]}