Hibbard was not entitled to compensation under NCVIA.
35) In order to prevent this very issue, neither the Althen test nor NCVIA require the claimant to prove actual causation in order to obtain compensation; rather, the petitioner must only present a prima facie case that the government has the opportunity to rebut.
46) In order for the NCVIA to retain its integrity and purpose, policymakers should implement new standards for proving causation to protect and compensate injured parties, while encouraging continued widespread use of vaccines.
According to the Linked States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, to be successful in a NCVIA case, petitioner must show: (1) a medical theory casually 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.
The Congressional report stated the background and purpose of NCVIA is to ensure public safety by guaranteeing the continued production of vaccines.
The NCVIA was passed to "stabilize the vaccine market and expedite compensation to injured parties.
Sec'y of Health & Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the authoritative opinion on the elements of an NCVIA claim.
In keeping with earlier NCVIA cases, the Althen court reaffirmed the principle that the special master was tasked with applying the law on a case-by-case basis, not effecting substantive change to the NCVIA.
50) The decision was met with a rigorous dissent arguing that the additional hurdle thwarted legislative intent by raising the burden of proof and inflating the authority of special masters by allowing them to interpret and alter the NCVIA.
56) First, consider the compelling argument that imposing a pre-Althen step violates the statutory intent of the NCVIA by increasing the evidentiary burden of claimants and thwarting Congress's intent to provide claimants with a quick, easy, and efficient means of redress.
64) Although Circuit Judge O'Malley and the Broekelschen dissent are correct in noting that a primary motivation of the NCVIA was to provide an efficient and generous avenue of redress for claimants, the claimants must demonstrate the existence of injury in furtherance of their claims.