The representative test cases are,
- King v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-584V
- Mead v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-215V
- Dwyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-1202V
"It is certainly my hope that our society will find ways to ensure that generous assistance is available to the families of all autistic children, regardless of the cause of their disorders. Such families must cope every day with tremendous challenges in caring for their autistic children, and all are deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of “causation-in-fact” evidence, to a listed vaccine. In this case, the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link."
3/12/2010 Special Master Hastings
King v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-584V
"Petitioners’ theory of vaccine-related causation is scientifically unsupportable. In the absence of a sound medical theory causally connecting William’s received vaccines to his autistic condition, the undersigned cannot find the proposed sequence of cause and effect to be logical or temporally appropriate. Having failed to satisfy their burden of proof under the articulated legal standard, petitioners cannot prevail on their claim of vaccine-related causation."
3/12/2010 Special Master Campbell-Smith
Mead v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-215V
"Unfortunately, the Dwyers (and uncounted other parents of children with ASD) have relied upon practitioners and researchers who peddled hope, not opinions grounded in science and medicine. My heart goes out to parents like the Dwyers who struggle daily, emotionally and financially, to care for their children, but I must decide cases based on the law and not sentiment. The law in this case requires preponderant evidence that TCVs caused or substantially contributed to Colin’s ASD, and, by that standard, petitioners are not entitled to compensation"
3/12/2010 Special Master Vowell
Dwyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-1202V
A claim for a judicial review within the Court of Federal Claims on a Special Master's ruling can be made with possibilities of outcome from such review being to affirm the decision of the Special Master, to set aside findings of fact and conclusions of law that might be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or to remand the case for further action in accordance with the Court's direction After such review there remains an option of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On February 12, 2009 the first three Autism Omnibus cases positing a connection between the Measles-Mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines [2007 Test Cases: MMR and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines (Theory 1)] in causing autism
- Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 98-916V
- Snyder v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 01-162V
- Hazlehurst v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-654V
For further reading and reference
'Vaccines court' rejects mercury-autism link in 3 test cases
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Los Angeles Times
March 12, 2010 | 12:57 p.m.
Autism vaccine ruling sparks a lot of comment
Los Angeles Times
March 12, 2010 | 5:32 pm
Vaccine court finds no link to autism
March 12, 2010 6:58 p.m. EST
Autism Decisions and Background Information
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Omnibus Autism Proceeding
Audio and transcripts of the Omnibus Autism trials
About the Omnibus Autism Proceeding
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
Health Resources and Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.