Karl Michael Schindler v. HHS - IPV/Polio, paralytic poliomyelitis, Type 2 (1993)

On October 1, 1990, Karl Michael Schindler's father filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on behalf of his son, who was approximately 14.5 years old at the time of vaccination. The petition alleged that Karl Michael Schindler received an oral polio vaccine on or about February 8, 1975, and subsequently developed paralytic poliomyelitis, Type 2.

The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The petitioner had previously filed a civil action against the vaccine manufacturer, Lederle Laboratories, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1983.

Following that dismissal, the petitioner negotiated a settlement with Karl's pediatrician, Dr. Robert Lugg, and his insurance company.

This settlement, approved by the St. Clair County, Michigan Probate Court on February 5, 1982, awarded $185,000 for Karl's vaccine-related injuries, and Dr.

Lugg was released from further claims. The Chief Special Master, Gary J.

Golkiewicz, dismissed the petition on September 23, 1992, finding that the probate court settlement constituted a settlement of a civil action for damages, thereby precluding compensation under the Vaccine Act, as per Section 11(c)(1)(E) which requires that a petitioner has not previously collected an award or settlement of a civil action for damages for the vaccine-related injury. The petitioner sought review of this decision, arguing that the probate court proceeding was not a "civil action" as narrowly defined by Black's Law Dictionary and procedural rules, and that the Chief Special Master erred by resorting to legislative history to define the term.

The petitioner also contended that the decision discriminated against his minor son because Michigan law requires court approval for settlements involving minors, a requirement not present for adult settlements. The Court of Federal Claims, in an opinion by Judge Robinson issued on March 19, 1993, affirmed the Chief Special Master's decision.

The court held that the Chief Special Master's broader definition of "civil action," which included the conservatorship proceeding before the Michigan Probate Court, was well-grounded in law and supported by the legislative history of the Vaccine Act, which aims to prevent double recoveries. The court found that the Chief Special Master's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and that it prevented the petitioner from recovering twice for the same injury.

Regarding the age discrimination claim, the court stated that while the effect of the Act as drafted might be unfortunate for minors requiring court-approved settlements, the Act itself, as applied by the Chief Special Master, was lawful. The court affirmed the denial of compensation.

The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments for Karl Michael Schindler's condition. The attorneys involved were not named in the provided text.