There would be no MDL 2848 if this was a Vaccine Court case...
By Mark A. York (October 16, 2018)
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP or NVICP) was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.
The official standing of the “Vaccine Court” was confirmed February 22, 2011 by the US Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC et al, in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as “vaccine court“, administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.
“In the vaccine court, the burden is on a plaintiff to show a biological theory of harm, demonstrate a logical sequence of events connecting the vaccine to the injury, and establish an appropriate time frame in which injury occurred. The petitioner must also show that there is not another biologically plausible explanation for the injury.
A 2005 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling held that an award should be granted if a petitioner either establishes a “Table Injury” or proves “causation in fact” by proving the following three prongs:
- a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
- a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and
- showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.
Pursuant to §11(c)(1)(A) of the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Court has jurisdiction to only hear cases listed on the Vaccine Injury Table see 42 CFR 100.3 Vaccine Injury Table (Drug List).
- The ZOSTAVAX vaccine is not a vaccine listed in the Vaccine Injury Table
- The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. does not preempt a Plaintiff from filing a civil complaint in federal court.
No Special Tax Was Paid By Zostavax
Merck & Co. did not pay the 75 cent tax per dose to the vaccine court, to have Zostavax included on the “Vaccine Injury Table” see 42 CFR 100.3 Vaccine Injury Table, that lists which drugs are under the “Vaccine Court” jurisdiction and not the normal courts of civil procedure in the United states.
Merck & Co. have taken the position that there is no overriding public interest in Zostavax being available, as there is with vaccines for contagious viruses that could potentially cause a public health epidemic.
The 75 cent excise tax on each vaccine administered to children and others, routinely gets routed to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, which is collected by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
CDC Shingles Vaccine Warning of Feb. 12, 2018
Women should avoid getting pregnant for at least 1 month after getting a shingles vaccine. Have a weakened immune system due to disease (such as cancer or AIDS) or medical treatments (such as radiation, immunotherapy, high-dose steroids, or chemotherapy).Feb 12, 2018
For additional CDC information on vaccines see: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html
Why is Varicella Vaccine on the Vaccine Court List?
Some confusion may exist due to the fact that Varicella vaccines are listed on the Vaccine Court list, this reference however does not refer to Zostavax. The Varicella Vaccines subject to vaccine court are related to the Chickenpox vaccines and not the Shingles vaccine.
Only vaccines that have been determined to be in the public interest despite being unavoidably unsafe are on the vaccine court list. No Vaccine Act preemption arguments arise from the Vaccine Act. for Zostavax. Zostavax was not permitted to be unsafe as drugs listed on the Vaccine Injury Table are classified.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines. The VICP was adopted in response to concerns over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine. The VICP uses a no-fault system for resolving vaccine injury claims. Compensation covers medical and legal expenses, loss of future earning capacity, and up to $250,000 for pain and suffering; a death benefit of up to $250,000 is available. If certain minimal requirements are met, legal expenses are compensated even for unsuccessful claims.
Since 1988, the program has been funded by an excise tax of 75 cents on every purchased dose of covered vaccine. To win an award, a claimant must have experienced an injury that is named as a vaccine injury in a table included in the law within the required time period or show a causal connection. The burden of proof is the civil law preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, in other words a showing that causation was more likely than not. Denied claims can be pursued in civil courts, though this is rare.
John Ray and other speakers will cover the Zostavax MDL 2848 case criteria and related issues at the upcoming Mass Tort Nexus “CLE Immersion Course”
November 9 -12, 2018 at The Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale , FL.
For class attendance information please contact Jenny Levine at 954.520.4494 or Jenny@masstortnexus.com.
For the most up to date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visitwww.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.
To obtain our free newsletters that contain real time mass tort updates, visitwww.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.
“VACCINE COURT” Related References
- Sugarman SD (2007). “Cases in vaccine court—legal battles over vaccines and autism”. N Engl J Med. 357 (13): 1275–7. doi:1056/NEJMp078168. PMID 17898095.
- Doja A, Roberts W (2006). “Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature”. Can J Neurol Sci. 33 (4): 341–6. doi:1017/s031716710000528x. PMID 17168158.
- Maugh TH II, Zajac A (2010-03-13). “‘Vaccines court’ rejects mercury–autism link in 3 test cases”. Los Angeles Times.
- Edlich RF; Olson DM; Olson BM; et al. (2007). “Update on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”. J Emerg Med. 33(2): 199–211. doi:1016/j.jemermed.2007.01.001. PMID 17692778.
- “Filing a claim with the VICP”. Health Resources and Services Administration. Retrieved 2013-08-19.
- “Vaccine Injury Table”. Health Resources and Services Administration. 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
- “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistics reports”. Health Resources and Services Administration. 2008-01-08. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
- Balbier TE Jr (1999-09-28). “Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
- “Who Can File”. www.hrsa.gov. Last Reviewed: February 2016: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
- Holder v. Abbott Laboratories, 444 F.3d 383
- Davis WN (2006). “No longer immune”. ABA Journal. 92 (7): 19, 43.
- Pear R (2002-12-14). “Threats and responses: legal risks; for victims of vaccine, winning case will be hard”. New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
- Keelan, J; Wilson, K (November 2011). “Balancing vaccine science and national policy objectives: lessons from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Omnibus Autism Proceedings”. American Journal of Public Health. 101 (11): 2016–21. doi:2105/ajph.2011.300198. PMC 3222385. PMID 21940934.
- Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2005). Text This decision, which is binding upon the United States Court of Federal Claims, clarified the standing for proving “causation in fact” absent a “Table Injury” under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)
- Offit PA (2008). “Vaccines and autism revisited—the Hannah Poling case”. N Engl J Med. 358 (20): 2089–91. doi:1056/NEJMp0802904. PMID 18480200.
- Rovner J (2008-03-07). “Case stokes debate about autism, vaccines”. NPR. Retrieved 2008-03-07.
- Holtzman D (2008). “Autistic spectrum disorders and mitochondrial encephalopathies”. Acta Paediatr. 97 (7): 859–60. doi:1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00883.x. PMID 18532934.
- Honey K (2008). “Attention focuses on autism”. J Clin Invest. 118 (5): 1586–7. doi:1172/JCI35821. PMC 2336894. PMID 18451989.
- Kirkland, A. (13 March 2012). “Credibility battles in the autism litigation”. Social Studies of Science. 42 (2): 237–261. doi:1177/0306312711435832. PMID 22848999.
- Omnibus Autism Proceeding, US Court of Federal Claims, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-autism-proceeding, visited October 12, 2016.
- Bridges A (2007-06-12). “Children with autism get day in court”. USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-14.
- Freking K, Neergaard L (2009-02-12). “Court says vaccine not to blame for autism”. Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-02-12.