Mark A. Arrowood v. HHS - IPV/Polio, encephalopathy and a residual seizure disorder (1993)

Petitioner, the administratrix of the estate of Mark A. Arrowood, sought review of special master orders dismissing her claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program.

Mark A. Arrowood was born on October 3, 1957.

On March 21, 1958, at approximately five months of age, he received an immunization. The following day, March 22, 1958, he began crying strangely, thrashing, and arching his back, and experienced his first known seizure.

He was diagnosed with a seizure disorder requiring continuous anti-convulsant medication. Mark Arrowood died on August 4, 1990, from aspiration of vomitus during a seizure, over 30 years after the vaccination.

The original petition, filed on October 1, 1990, alleged the vaccine was polio and that the onset of seizures occurred twelve hours after the inoculation. An amended petition alleged the vaccine was Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (DPT).

A hearing was held to determine the vaccine type. The special master found no persuasive evidence that the vaccine was DPT, concluding based on an immunization record and witness testimony that it was a polio vaccination.

The special master then noted that a seizure disorder following an inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is not a Table injury, requiring proof of causation-in-fact. Petitioner was directed to provide expert medical testimony to prove causation.

Petitioner stated she was unable to provide such testimony, asserting the inoculation was DPT, not IPV. Consequently, the special master dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prove causation-in-fact for a polio vaccination.

The petitioner sought review, arguing the special master's findings were arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and that she was held to a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence. The court upheld the special master's decision, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the vaccine was polio and that the petitioner failed to prove causation-in-fact.

The court reviewed the special master's decision under a highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, finding that the special master appropriately weighed the evidence, including the immunization record and witness testimony, and applied the correct burden of proof. The court noted that the special master is not bound by strict rules of evidence and has discretion to weigh testimony and documentary evidence.

The court found no reversible error in the special master's findings of fact or conclusions of law.