Karis Childs v. HHS - DPT, febrile seizure, benign occipital epilepsy of childhood, afebrile seizures, seizure disorder (1995)

Karis Childs, a minor, through her parents George G. Childs and Karyn L.

Childs, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act on September 16, 1994. The petition alleged that Karis suffered an on-Table residual seizure disorder and encephalopathy as a result of her diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccination, an oral polio vaccine, and a haemophilus influenzae type B vaccination administered on February 14, 1991.

The petitioners alleged that the onset of symptoms occurred on February 16, 1991, when Karis experienced a probable febrile seizure with a fever of 103.8 degrees Fahrenheit, two days after her vaccination. Karis had no prior history of febrile seizures or seizure disorder.

She was diagnosed with benign occipital epilepsy of childhood on September 17, 1991, after suffering another seizure, and was placed on anti-seizure medication. Her electroencephalogram was interpreted as abnormal.

On November 4, 1992, Karis suffered another seizure while on medication, and medical records indicated a history of febrile and afebrile seizures since being placed on medication. Her pediatric neurologist, Svinder S.

Toor, M.D., noted on June 22, 1993, that her seizures were of occipital lobe origin. The respondent argued that the petition was untimely because the limitations period expired 36 months after the first symptom or manifestation of onset, which occurred on February 16, 1991.

The Special Master dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that the limitations period expired 36 months after the initial seizure in February 1991. The Special Master rejected the argument that the limitations period should run from the November 4, 1992 episode, stating that the "discovery doctrine" does not apply to Section 16(a)(2) of the Vaccine Act and that the "significant aggravation" provision applies only to pre-existing conditions, not to a worsening of an injury caused by the vaccination itself.

The petitioners filed a Motion for Review, arguing that the Special Master misinterpreted the language "significant aggravation of such injury" in Section 16(a)(2). The court reviewed the Special Master's decision, affirming that the "significant aggravation" provision of the Vaccine Act applies only to pre-existing conditions.

Since Karis had no prior seizure history, the court found that the vaccination could not have aggravated a pre-existing condition. The court reasoned that the November 4, 1992 seizure episode was an additional seizure, not an "aggravation" of the initial seizure, as there was no intervening vaccination to cause such aggravation.

The court concluded that the action accrued in February 1991, and the petition, filed on September 16, 1994, was therefore untimely. The Special Master's dismissal was affirmed.

The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation or name petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel.