Taylor Morris v. HHS - IPV/Polio, transverse myelitis (2003)

On June 28, 1999, Sonya and David Morris filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act on behalf of their daughter, Taylor Morris. They alleged that Taylor developed transverse myelitis (TM) and subsequent developmental delays caused by the oral polio vaccine (OPV) administered on July 12, 1996, when she was four months old.

Taylor also received DPT and Hib vaccines during the same visit. The petition focused on the OPV as the cause of the alleged injury.

Petitioners' counsel and respondent counsel are not named in the provided text. Special Master Millman denied the petition on December 18, 2002, and Judge Firestone affirmed this decision on June 27, 2003.

Taylor Morris was born on March 10, 1996. On August 8, 1996, less than thirty days after her second OPV, her parents took her to Dr.

L.E. Nickerson's office due to respiratory distress, lethargy, rapid breathing, wheezing, and a fever of 101 degrees.

Her neurological examination at that time was normal. She was admitted to Rowan Regional Medical Center for respiratory symptoms.

On August 10, 1996, Taylor began exhibiting neurological symptoms, including unequal pupils, poor grasp, and flaccidity in her left extremities. She was transferred to Carolinas Medical Center on August 12, 1996, where an MRI revealed a swollen cervical cord consistent with transverse myelitis.

Her later sequelae included delayed developmental milestones, tight heel cords and hamstrings, leg dragging, frequent urinary tract infections, and a spastic bladder requiring catheterization. Petitioners' expert, adult neurologist Dr.

Carlo Tornatore, testified that Taylor received an OPV containing a non-attenuated or virulent virus that replicated in her digestive tract, entered her spinal cord, and triggered TM. He posited that the twenty-seven-day interval was an incubation period and that Taylor's respiratory problems were symptoms of the spinal cord injury.

He also suggested that steroid treatment may have helped her recover more quickly. Respondent's expert, pediatric neurologist Dr.

Gerald Raymond, testified that the contemporaneous medical records indicated Taylor first presented with a respiratory viral illness, followed by TM. He stated that viral infections are a common cause of TM and that OPV is not known to cause TM, apart from vaccine-associated paralytic polio.

He also noted that doctors often do not test for viruses as the cause of TM. Special Master Millman denied compensation, crediting Dr.

Raymond's testimony and the contemporaneous treating records over the parents' recollections and Dr. Tornatore's theory.

The Special Master found that Taylor's respiratory infection, signifying a viral infection, was the cause of her TM, not the OPV, and that the petitioners failed to show the OPV was a substantial factor in bringing about her injury. The Special Master gave greater weight to the medical records than the parents' testimony regarding Taylor's health on August 8, 1996.

The Special Master also questioned Dr. Tornatore's assumption of a virulent OPV strain, noting the lack of other similar cases.

Judge Firestone affirmed the Special Master's denial. The court held that the Special Master's conclusion was supported by the medical records, expert testimony, and literature.

The court rejected petitioners' arguments that the Special Master had ignored steroid treatment, improperly relied on an alternative cause without meeting the burden of proof, performed her own medical research without allowing comment, or denied petitioners a fair chance to respond to a supplemental report. The court found that the Special Master's discussion of myelomeningocele was dicta and did not undermine her decision, as she explicitly stated it was speculation and would not be considered in her analysis.

The court also found that the Special Master did not abuse her discretion by not waiting for petitioners' response to Dr. Raymond's final report, as she stated she did not consider the supplemental report and petitioners failed to show how a response would have altered the outcome.

Compensation was denied.