Hazlehurst v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In February 2001, Yates Hazlehurst received the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine three days before his first birthday. Though Yates had developed normally prior to the vaccination, by the summer of 2001 he had developed developmental and gastrointestinal issues. In July 2002, Yates was diagnosed with autism. Rolf and Angela Hazlehurst (plaintiffs), Yates’s parents, sought compensation for Yates under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (act). The Office of Special Masters heard the case. The Hazlehursts asserted that (1) the measles component of the MMR vaccine could cause an immune dysfunction that impaired the vaccinee’s ability to clear the measles virus, (2) the persisting measles virus led to chronic inflammation in the gastrointestinal system and the brain, and (3) the inflammation in the brain caused neurological damage that manifested as autism. The research on which the Hazlehursts primarily relied for evidence of their theory was conducted by Unigenetics laboratory. Dr. Stephen Bustin offered expert testimony and reports regarding Unigenetics. After analyzing Unigenetics’ equipment and notebooks, Bustin concluded that Unigenetics had failed to (1) follow the lab’s own operating procedures, (2) follow certain standard lab practices, and (3) comply with standards detailed by the manufacturers of the lab testing equipment. Bustin concluded that these failures undermined the reliability of the lab’s test results. The special master determined that Bustin’s evidence was reliable. The special master denied the Hazlehursts’ motion to strike Bustin’s testimony and reports, explaining that the evidence was highly relevant and that fairness had been achieved by giving the Hazlehursts more than a year in which to obtain additional information to counter Bustin’s analysis. The special master concluded that the Hazlehursts failed to prove that Yates’s vaccination had caused his autism and thus denied the petition for compensation. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the decision. The Hazlehursts appealed, arguing that the special master improperly relied on Bustin’s evidence because the evidence should have been excluded.