European Union Vaccine Injury Legal Decision: Temporal Proximity
NOTE: Thank you to Mary Holland for sharing this critically important information regarding burden of proof of vaccine injury in the European Union.
Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 66/2017
Luxembourg, 21 June 2017
Where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of the defect of the vaccine and of a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered may be made out by serious, specific and consistent evidence.
The temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered may, where applicable, constitute sufficient evidence to make out such proof.
Read the full press release here.
@ Wayne -
Thanks for your answer. I'd suspected that Bruesewitz had nixed the possibility. But didn't anyone before Bruesewitz sue in District Court after being turned down in vaccine court?
Posted by: Aimee Doyle | June 25, 2017 at 02:58 PM
@ Aimee Doyle
Prior to Bruesewitz decision by the Supreme Court in 2011, a petitioner could exist the program at day 240 or even day 420 if there was no final decision. A petitioner then could file a suit in state or federal court.
However, Bruesewitz has eliminated that option for most petitioners, making the Program the exclusive remedy for those injured or have died as the result of a vaccination that is covered in the Program. certain vaccines are still not covered, the most common is the shingles vaccine.
There is an argument proffered by some that petitioners can still file in state or federal court on the grounds of fraud. That is a very difficult and extremely narrow window to fit into.
There was a loophole for injuries incurred during in utero up until earlier this year. This made Pharma and our gov't very nervous. The statute stated that only the person who was administered the vaccine can claim the injury. It made for a very murky issue for babies in utero. The pregnant mother received the vax, not the unborn child. It was a program for Pharma and they did not want a civil tort case proceeding in state or federal court for the child. Language was inserted into the 21st Century Cures Act to amend the statute to require any injuries of the child in utero must proceed in the Vaccine Court. President Obama signed the bill into law in his final days in office.
Posted by: Wayne Rohde | June 24, 2017 at 10:22 PM
I agree with you regarding the inability for petitioners to use the "discovery" process that is afforded to most in a civil or criminal court proceeding. Congress's intent was to create a very quick and efficient administrative process. During congressional debate of this issue back in 1984 and 1985, the thought process was if discovery motions were allowed, it would slow down or grind to a halt, the adjudication of the petitions. What was not thought about nor debated was the entire program was built around the idea that the several vaccines had associated table injuries and it would be quick for the petitioners. What no one saw, was the dramatic shift from on-table to off-table or proving causation.
I wrote about this very issue in my book, The Vaccine Court. I interviewed a few attorneys who have great knowledge of this subject for my book. Kim Mack Rosenberg, Mary Holland, Rene Gentry, and Robert Krakow contributed.
Posted by: Wayne Rohde | June 24, 2017 at 10:09 PM
The blatant bias that constitutes mainstream media's vaccine/autism coverage has reached a new low in this case, with these shrill headlines contradicted by the facts they purport to report:
CNN: “EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illness without evidence”;
ABC & New York Times: “Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses without proof.”
To learn more about the Court of Justice of the European Union:
“Role: Ensuring EU law is interpreted and applied the same in every EU country; ensuring countries and EU institutions abide by EU law.
“Members: Court of Justice: 1 judge from each EU country, plus 11 advocates general”
“The current EU Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.”
CJEU cases are listed here:
This verdict’s provisional text in English here:
Posted by: nhokkanen | June 23, 2017 at 05:22 PM
@ Wayne Rhode
"In the NVICP or Vaccine Court, to prove causation for a vaccine injury claim, the petitioner must satisfy the Althen standard. The EU ruling is similar to #3 of our burden.
It is one thing for the Vaccine Court to require "proof" of a vaccine injury claim .. but .. at the same time deny petitioner their only true opportunity to acquire that "proof" .. via the "discovery process" .. a process I believe to be critical in the gathering of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
For instance ... ALL manufacturer research documents and communications .. including E-MAILS .. between researchers and manufacturers.
Indeed, in my humble opinion .. denial of the DISCOVERY PROCESS in a VACCINE COURT .. is a deliberate policy to protect the vaccine industry .. adding an insurmountable legal burden to the petitioner's quest for a fair and just verdict.
Posted by: qu | June 23, 2017 at 06:29 AM
Several families that read AoA were denied by the Vaccine Court 10 years ago in the famous Omnibus Proceedings. Now that autism is seen as encephalitis, the CDC is seen as fraudulent, and Merck scientists are testifying in court about data fraud, is there any recourse or does the court just make the best decision it can at the time and that's it ?
I've always operated under the assumption that we're on our own and that's it. Lesson learned, life isn't fair.
Posted by: kws | June 22, 2017 at 06:54 PM
@Wayne Rohde - I hope you can clear up a legal question I have.
I'm curious - I had thought that petitioners who were denied in Vaccine Court could then file in District Court. Is this true? It seems if so, there would be discovery at that point. But I haven't read that anyone turned down in Vaccine Court has actually taken that step. Is it not an option?
Posted by: Aimee Doyle | June 22, 2017 at 06:08 PM
In the NVICP or Vaccine Court, to prove causation for a vaccine injury claim, the petitioner must satisfy the Althen standard. The EU ruling is similar to #3 of our burden.
In the NVICP, the Petitioner's burden is to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination brought about his/her injury by providing: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury. If Petitioner satisfies this burden, he/she is ‘entitled to recover unless the [government] shows, also by a preponderance of evidence, that the injury was in fact caused by factors unrelated to the vaccine.”
Posted by: Wayne Rohde | June 22, 2017 at 03:53 PM
"That could be the case inter alia where that evidence leads the court to consider, first, that the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the disease and, second, that the vaccine therefore does not offer the safety that one is entitled to expect."
Then how can the vaccine be offered to anyone?
Posted by: Linda1 | June 22, 2017 at 03:36 PM
At least there is some kind of recognition that helping desperate families does not necessarily concern not HAVING a scientific explanation for why it families suffer, it's about not ACCEPTING the SCIENTIFIC explanation.
Posted by: annie | June 22, 2017 at 02:46 PM
I think it safe to say our own VACCINE COURT MASTERS operate exactly opposite of what the Court of Justice for the European Union recommends ....
"Where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of the defect of the vaccine and of a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered may be made out by serious, specific and consistent evidence."
I think 5,000 families petitioning the VACCINE COURT for the "casual link" between their child's overly aggressive .. recommended and approved vaccine schedule ... immediately followed by a diagnosis of "regressive autism" ... would present enough "defect and damage suffered" .. to present "consistent evidence" as PROOF .. of the vaccines DEFECT.
Unfortunately, this decision will generate absolutely NO RESPONSE .. nor .. REHABILITATION .. from the US VACCINE COURT .. to BEGIN placing the interest of the INJURED .. over the vested interest of the VACCINE INDUSTRY.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | June 22, 2017 at 06:45 AM