[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OK, the Bailey Banks finding came from the same Vaccine Court from the Poling case, in which the finding has to be "50 percent and a feather" -- not scientific standards.

Understanding the NVICP

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is an innovative federal no-fault
program enacted in 1986, (and since amended), which was designed to resolve a perceived crisis
in vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines
nationwide. In mandating that vaccine injury claims be considered first under VICP, the statute
was intended to reduce lawsuits against physicians and manufacturers, while providing those
claiming vaccine injuries a reduced burden of proof. Claimants under the VICP need not prove
negligence, failure to warn, or other tort causes of action; they must only prove that a covered
vaccine caused injury.

As in any product liability case, the initial question for decision is causation. There are two
ways to prove causation under the Act. The VICP contains a Vaccine Injury Table, which is
designed to minimize difficulties petitioners face in proving that their injury resulted from a
vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Table lists certain injuries and conditions which, if found to occur
within a prescribed period of time following vaccination, create a rebuttable presumption of
causation. In such “on-Table” cases, petitioners do not need to adduce proof of actual causation.
For example, if a petitioner proves that her child received a DPT vaccine and that the child
suffered an encephalopathy (brain injury) within three days thereafter, causation is presumed.
The Act’s Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation further define the compensable conditions.
Assuming a petitioner is able to meet the Table’s requirements, the respondent (the Secretary of
HHS) may still defeat the compensation claim by establishing that the condition was more
probably than not caused by a “factor unrelated” to the vaccine.