Skip to main content

Vaccine Court Confusion

The Hannah Poling news reporting is analyzed at Left Brain / Right Brain. Specifically, LBRB looks at the coverage from CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

Sharyl Attkisson blogs the Hannah Poling settlement.

The reporting is misleading, but the issue is so complex I cannot fault CBS or the reporter entirely. The 2007 decision to settle the claim by the Poling family that vaccinations harmed their daughter was a reasonable choice -- the case would have been complex and likely to end in the same confusion regardless of any award.

The Poling case was filed in 2002 and the decision to settle without a ruling was made in 2007. The reasons for settling the case were logical: Hannah Poling's underlying condition was exacerbated by a fever. Though we can never know if a vaccine was or was not the cause of the fever, the "tables" used in such cases assume a potential cause within certain timespans. In other words, if you get ill within X days of a vaccine, you do not need to prove the vaccine caused the illness.

The fever caused swelling, encephalopathy, and exacerbated a mitochondrial condition.

There is no way, none, to know if the fever was or was not caused by a vaccine, but the federal guidelines suggest settlement in such "table illness" cases. This is one of the rare instances in our legal system in which you assume causation and responsibility without reasonable certainty. Why? Because some people do have reactions to vaccines.

The vaccine injury list is online. See the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: NVICP Table of injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines.

There was no "winning" in the Poling case, it was a settlement. That settlement is paid indirectly through the NVICP, so the choice to settle was made by the HRSA / HHS of the United States, not the vaccine manufacturers. It was a choice based on the notion that, though doctors violated protocols, it would be nearly impossible to prove or disprove causation. Often, very often, settling a case is easier.

However, NVICP is a special creature in our legal system. It begins with the presumption of cause which is not the norm in most U.S. legal structures. You begin with the vaccine as "cause" by default. This leaves the NVICP, as directed by the law creating the "vaccine court," with the mandate to settle most cases that fit within the table for compensation.

There is no way, none, to prove or not, that a fever was caused by the vaccine. However, the legal mandate of the NVICP is to assume the vaccine contributed and settle the case.

The NVICP settlements are all called "concessions." The specific terms used are: conceded settlements, litigative risk conceded settlements, and entitlement decisions.

The terms are defined and used according to the 2008 meeting of the NVICP members:

"The majority of cases, however, are to be compensated by settlement. By settlement, the NVICP board means litigative risk concession settlements. That is where the petitioners maintain that they are entitled to compensation and the Government maintains that they are not. However, the parties agree that the case should be settled without resorting to a decision through litigation."

It is a legal term. Once again, we see how language specific to a field causes confusion.


Popular posts from this blog

Autism, Asperger's, and IQ

"Aren't people with Asperger's more likely to be geniuses? Isn't genius related to autism?"

A university student asked this in a course I am teaching. The class discussion was covering neurological differences, free will, and the nature versus nurture debate. The textbook for the course includes sidebars on the brain and behavior throughout chapters on ethics and morality. This student was asking a question reflecting media portrayals of autism spectrum disorders, social skills difficulties, and genius.

I did not address this question from a personal perspective in class, but I have when speaking to groups of parents, educators, and caregivers. Some of the reasons these questions arise, as mentioned above, are media portrayals and news coverage of autism. Examples include:
Television shows with gifted characters either identified with or assumed to have autistic traits: Alphas, Big Bang Theory, Bones, Rizzoli and Isles, Touch, and others. Some would include She…

Listen… and Help Others Hear

We lack diversity in the autism community.

Think about what you see, online and in the media. I see upper-middle class parents, able to afford iPads and tutors and official diagnoses. I see parents who have the resources to fight for IEPs and physical accommodations.

I see self-advocacy leadership that has been fortunate (and hard working, certainly) to attend universities, travel the nation (or even internationally), and have forums that reach thousands.

What I don't see? Most of our actual community. The real community that represents autism's downsides. The marginalized communities, ignored and excluded from our boards, our commissions, our business networks.

How did my lower-income parents, without college educations, give me a chance to be more? How did they fight the odds? They did, and now I am in a position of privilege. But I don't seem to be making much of a difference.

Demand that your charities seek out the broadest possible array of advisers and board members.…

Life Updates: The MFA Sprint

Life is okay, if more than a little hectic at the end of this first month.

With one month down, I'm 11 months away from my MFA in Film and Digital Technology. Though things might happen and things do go wrong, so far I'm on schedule and things are going well —— though I'm exhausted and working harder than I did for any other degree. Because the MFA requires projects every week, this isn't as easy to schedule as writing. Even researching a paper can be done from the comfort of home, at any hour.

You cannot make movies by yourself, at any time of day. It doesn't work that way. Filming takes time, and often requires a team of people. It's not comparable to working alone on a degree in writing or rhetoric.

The team-based nature of film is exhausting for me, but I enjoy the results. I also like the practical nature of the skills being taught. You either learn how to adjust ISO, f/Stop, shutter speed, and other variables or you don't. You can have theories …