Ansel Walters, Shakima Davis-Walters, Natural Parents of K.s.s.w., Aminor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANSEL WALTERS, SHAKIMA DAVIS-WALTERS,
NATURAL PARENTS OF K.S.S.W., A MINOR,
Petitioners-Appellants
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-2369
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:15-vv-01380-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
Decided: April 3, 2025
______________________
P HYLLIS WIDMAN, Widman Law Firm, LLC, Linwood,
NJ, argued for petitioners-appellants.
SARAH BLACK RIFKIN, Torts Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN
M. BOYNTON, C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, HEATHER L YNN
P EARLMAN.
______________________
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

WALTERS v. HHS 2
Before CHEN, SCHALL , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
SCHALL , Circuit Judge.
On November 16, 2015, Ansel Walters and Shakima
Davis-Walters (“Petitioners”) filed a claim under the Na-
tional Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). In their claim, they
sought compensation for injuries allegedly suffered by
their minor son K.S.S.W. as the result of the administra-
tion of a diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (“DTaP”)
vaccine on January 16, 2013. On April 18, 2023, the Spe-
cial Master assigned to the case issued a decision denying
entitlement to compensation. Walters v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2023 WL 3750716 (Fed. Cl. Sp.
Mstr. April 18, 2023), J.A. 1–46. The Special Master found
that Petitioners had failed to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that K.S.S.W.’s present condition (seizures,
developmental delays, and cortical visual impairment) was
caused by the vaccine he received. J.A. 45. Petitioners
timely moved for review of the Special Master’s decision in
the Court of Federal Claims. On July 31, 2023, the court
affirmed the Special Master’s decision. Walters v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2023 WL 5274006
(Fed. Cl. July 31, 2023), J.A. 48–61. Petitioners have
timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). For the
reasons stated below, we affirm.
I
Under the Vaccine Act, there are two methods by which
a petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for an award of
compensation. First, a petitioner may show that he or she
suffered a vaccine-specific injury listed on the Vaccine In-
jury Table within the requisite period of time set forth in
the Table (a “Table injury”), such that causation is pre-
sumed. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i); see 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3 (“Vaccine [I]njury [T]able”). Second, a petitioner
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

WALTERS v. HHS 3
may show that a non-Table injury was caused-in-fact by a
vaccine listed on the Table (“actual causation” or “causa-
tion-in-fact”). See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii). Under
either approach, the petitioner bears the burden of proving
a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. See
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A).
In this case, Petitioners contend that K.S.S.W. suffered
a non-Table injury that was caused-in-fact by a vaccine
listed on the Table, specifically, the DTaP vaccine. Under
these circumstances, Petitioners were required to prove
each of three factors set forth in Althen v. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Those factors are:
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vac-
cination 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 vaccina-
tion and injury.
Id.
In her decision, the Special Master found that Petition-
ers had failed to carry their burden of proof with respect to
each of the three Althen factors. J.A. 36–45. Finding no
error in that determination, the Court of Federal Claims
affirmed. J.A. 54–61.
II
Under the Vaccine Act, the Court of Federal Claims re-
views the decision of the Special Master to determine if it
is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
wise not in accordance with law.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(e)(2)(B); Althen, 418 F.3d at 1277. “In reviewing an ap-
peal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a
Vaccine Act case, we apply the same standard of review as
the Court of Federal Claims applied to the [S]pecial [M]as-
ter’s decision.” Andreu ex rel. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

WALTERS v. HHS 4
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also
Koehn ex rel. Koehn, Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 773
F.3d 1239, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Although we review legal
determinations without deference, we review findings of
fact under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Griglock
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 687 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); see also Moberly ex rel Moberly v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
III
On appeal, Petitioners make two arguments. First,
they acknowledge that, throughout the proceedings below,
it was recognized that K.S.S.W. was born with chromoso-
mal abnormalities. Pet’rs’ Br. 13; Pet’rs’ Reply Br. 2. They
argue, however, that the Special Master erred because she
impermissibly raised their burden of proof by requiring
them to rule out K.S.S.W.’s genetic abnormalities as an al-
ternate cause for his condition. Thus, they assert that
“[f]rom the beginning of the case, it seemed that the Court
considered that K.S.S.W.’s genetic abnormalities were the
reason for his [condition] and therefore, did not require the
government to prove this by preponderant evidence.”
Pet’rs’ Br. 17. Petitioners contend that, under our prece-
dent, they “were not required to prove that the DTaP vac-
cine caused K.S.S.W.’s injuries.” Id. Instead, they argue,
they “only needed to show that it was more likely than not
that the vaccine caused [K.S.S.W.’s] injuries.” Id. Petition-
ers correctly state what their burden of proof was. See de
Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he petitioner need not show that
the vaccine was the sole or predominant cause of her in-
jury, just that it was a substantial factor.”). They inaccu-
rately state what happened in their case, however.
Having reviewed the decision of the Special Master and
the Court of Federal Claims, we have no difficulty conclud-
ing that Petitioners were not required to disprove an alter-
nate theory of causation. Rather, based on the evidence
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

WALTERS v. HHS 5
presented, including the evidence that K.S.S.W. possessed
two chromosomal abnormalities known to cause neurologi-
cal problems, the Special Master found that Petitioners
had failed to prove that the DTaP vaccine was a substantial
factor in causing K.S.S.W.’s condition. J.A. 39–40, 44–46;
see Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d
1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, to prove non-Ta-
ble injuries a petitioner must prove “by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the vaccine was not only a but-for cause
of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about
the injury.”). We also note that Petitioners themselves re-
lied on K.S.S.W.’s dual abnormalities for their causation
theory, which necessarily required the Special Master to
make certain findings about K.S.S.W.’s abnormalities and
their role in Petitioners’ medical theory. See Doe v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 601 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(“[W]hen petitioners attempt to eliminate other possible
causes to buttress their theory of causation, the special
master should evaluate such evidence in determining
whether a prima facie case has been established.”).
Petitioners’ second argument is that, in determining
that Petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof with
respect to the Althen factors, the Special Master made find-
ings of fact that were arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners
urge first in that regard that the Special Master erred in
giving more weight to the government’s experts and their
medical theories than to Petitioners’ experts and their
medical theories. Pet’rs’ Br. 13–16. We do not agree. The
Special Master carefully considered the testimony of the
parties’ experts and found Petitioners’ experts to be less
credible than those of the government. See J.A. 21–32.
Thereafter, in reviewing the Special Master’s decision, the
Court of Federal Claims pointed out that the Special Mas-
ter found Petitioners’ experts less compelling than the gov-
ernment’s experts because “[Petitioners’ experts’]
descriptions of the timing and symptoms of K.S.S.W.’s con-
ditions contradicted contemporaneous medical records”
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 5 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

WALTERS v. HHS 6
and because Petitioners’ experts had offered testimony
“outside of their areas of expertise.” J.A. 55–56. Special
Masters have “broad discretion in determining credibility
because [they] saw the witnesses and heard the testimony.”
Bradley ex rel. Bradley v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We see noth-
ing in the record that supports the conclusion that the Spe-
cial Master abused her discretion in this case.
Petitioners’ second claim in support of their argument
that the decision of the Special Master is arbitrary and ca-
pricious is that there was insufficient evidence for the Spe-
cial Master’s conclusion that Petitioners “failed to provide
the evidence needed to establish a prima facie case that the
DTaP vaccine K.S.S.W. received caused his afebrile sei-
zures and subsequent conditions of developmental delay
and [cortical visual impairment].” J.A. 44; see Pet’rs’ Br.
18–19. Again, we do not agree. As the Court of Federal
Claims noted, the Special Master “carefully considered the
entirety of the evidence in the record, including K.S.S.W.’s
voluminous medical records involving his treatments for
congenital health conditions.” J.A. 60. Accordingly, in our
view, the court did not err in concluding that the “[S]pecial
[M]aster properly considered K.S.S.W.’s genetic conditions
as an alternative cause of his injuries.” Id. (citation omit-
ted).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
Court of Federal Claims denying Petitioners’ claim for com-
pensation under the Vaccine Act.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-2369 Document: 48 Page: 6 Filed: 04/03/2025

-- 6 of 6 --