1. Week 4
2. Background Facts
2.1. Parties
2.1.1. Hannah Bruesewitz
2.1.2. Wyeth LLC
2.2. What happened
2.2.1. (1992) Hannah was six months old, her pediatrician administered the 3rd of the 5 shots in the DTP vaccine series., required by CDC childhood immunization.
2.2.1.1. There no indication of Hannan suffering from seizures prior to vaccines.
2.2.2. Within 24 hours after the vaccine was administered hannah began experiensing seisures. She countiniued to suffering more than one hundred seisures for next month
2.2.2.1. Hannah was suffering from the siserues more than one hundred for another one month
2.3. History
2.3.1. Hannah parents filed the petition in the Vaccine Court in April 1995 for relief in the US court under the national Childhood Vaccibne Injury Act
2.3.1.1. Claim was denied by Federal Court
2.3.2. Hannah's parents filed Complaints in the Philadelphia Court of Common Please in October 2005
2.3.2.1. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice
3. Issue Before Court
3.1. Plaintiff is trying to prove that the vaccines which was administered to Hannah caused the seizures leading to the diagnose and health issues.
4. Rule of Law
4.1. Plaintiff has the burden of proof- that the administration of the vaccine caused the Health failure.
4.1.1. Consumer expectation test
4.1.1.1. No information was given regarding reports that the vaccines had resulted in other health related complications.
4.1.2. Risk Utility Test
4.1.2.1. At the time in which the vaccines was admnitrered the damaged was already done. However pryr to the adminsitaon of the 3rd shot, the FDA approved an alternte DPT vaccine
4.1.2.1.1. Defendant did not get aprroval for the new vaccines untill december 1996. In 1998 Wyeth discountinuting the Tri-Immunol vaccine
5. Application
5.1. Wyeth argues that this case has unreasonable danger by the risk utility correlation of the vaccine and her health issue
5.1.1. Plantiif did not get enought evidence of the vaccines failure rate. Court was not in favor to Plantiff
5.1.2. The consumer expectation test should enforce the need for all providers to inform their patients of the recorded alternative results .
5.2. Plantiff has burden of proving that vaccine caused the health problems of their duatehr
5.2.1. The correlation between vaccine and her daughetr health directly influence her hear health problem issues from that vaccine
6. Conclusion
6.1. After being rejected for several times. Court found favout to the Bruewitz family
7. Impacts
7.1. Case 1
7.1.1. https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-cases/vaccine-case-results/11-579V-hpv-vaccine-jra.pdf
7.1.1.1. (“HPV”) vaccine; juvenile *rheumatoid arthritis (“JRA”); undifferentiated connective tissue .
7.2. Case 2
7.2.1. https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-cases/vaccine-case-results/15-0109V-flu-vaccine-brachial-neuritis.pdf
7.2.1.1. Joint Stipulation on Damages influenza (“flu”) Vaccine Brachial Neuritis; Special Processing Unit