VACCINE

The Vaccine Court
The United States federal court has presided over landmark cases for the autism community, filing official court decisions that have linked vaccinations as an
environmental trigger of autism. The court in which all of these decisions are rendered is the Office of Special Masters of the United States Courts of Federal
Claims, otherwise known as “Vaccine Court.”
The U.S. government created this specific court in 1986 to protect pharmaceutical companies from the direct lawsuits that were arising due to the preponderance
of illnesses and injuries that were stemming from the company’s vaccination products. By establishing the Vaccine Court, the government now protects the
pharmaceutical industry by trying the cases and awarding damages from a federal excise tax added to the cost of each dosage of a vaccine.
In the “Vaccine Court,” the burden of proof lays squarely on the claimant. In other words, a family must show a clear causal connection between a vaccination
and its adverse effects. For the autism community, this standard is made more challenging because the “Vaccine Court” does not accept “autism” as a legal determination.
This is because autism is a clinical diagnosis, labeled on the basis of a collection of clinical features and created by causes that are still unknown.
But the autism community has still persevered, and compelled the court to acknowledge the link between their children’s autism diagnoses and vaccinations’
environmental triggers.
Vaccine Injury Court
The Bailey Banks Case
The judge rules that the Banks family successfully demonstrates that “the
MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey
suffered and continues to suffer.” This includes Bailey’s diagnosis of Pervasive
Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified, which has long
been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by the CDC and other federal
health agencies.
BOX LINK
Vaccine Injury Court
The Richelle Oxley Case
The Oxley family presents their case that Richelle’s disabilities, including
encephalopathy and autistic behaviors, are a result of the pertussis vaccine.
The judge rules in their favor, stating that their “claim is strongly supported”
by the presented evidence, and that there is “not a preponderance of the
evidence that Richelle’s condition is due to factors unrelated to the administration
of the vaccine.”
BOX LINK
Vaccine Injury Court
The Eric Lassiter Case
The Lassiter family presents Eric’s diptheria-pertusis-tetanus vaccination
as the cause of his injuries, a diagnosis described as “static encepalopathy
with autistic tendencies in addition to delayed development.” The judge
rules that the Department of Health & Human Services’ “respondent’s evidence
and proffered explanations are weak, unconvincing and insufficient”
and that the Lassiter family “has presented a better case in support of. . .
injury. The Court concludes that a preponderance of the evidence requires
a finding for the petitioner.”
Vaccine Injury Court
The Hannah Poling Case
The Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and
Human Services concedes that Hannah’s vaccinations aggravated her mitochondrial
disorder, resulting in “features of autism spectrum disorder.”
BOX LINK
BOX LINK