|
CHCC Decision Database - Detail & Summary Screen
|
| |
| |
On March 9, 2006, in a clear victory for petitioners in the Vaccine Program, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued Capizzano v. Sec'y. The Court held, once again, that petitioners need not present peer-reviewed scientific literature to prevail. It is enough, the Court said, if a petitioner provides a medical theory linking an injury to the vaccine, a logical sequence of cause and effect between the vaccine and the injury (significantly, the Court found that the opinions of treating doctors should be given great evidentiary weight when considering the logical sequence of cause and effect), and an appropriate temporal relationship between them. This can be accomplished, the Court stated, by medical records or by an expert opinion. Peer-reviewed literature, pathological markers, rechallenge and general medical acceptance, are unnecessary. Once a petitioner has provided this information, the Court said, he or she will be compensated unless the government show the injury was caused by something else. In the past, special masters have discounted the opinions of treating physicians unless they were supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature.
 | | (19 pages / 54 kb )
| |
|
|
|
|
|
