Bean-Sasser v. HHS, (Fed. Cl. Jun. 26, 2016) (Yock, SJ)
The reviewing court held it was not arbitrary and capricious to find that Petitioner’s RA was preexistingat the time of the vaccines, given the RF antibody. Further, it was within his discretion to find that Respondent’s expert was more persuasive, especially given his more recent experience treating RA.
With respect to the Federal Circuit’s fact-specific finding in Capizzano regarding RA and the hepatitis B vaccine, the reviewing court noted that one of the studies relied upon in that case had not been filed in this case, and that a new epidemiological study was published after Capizzano that was filed.
In summary, the reviewing judge held that the Special Master carefully and thoroughly weighed the evidence before him, and there was no reason why the reviewing judge should repeat that process.