## Facts

- Shon Burch received an MMR vaccination while pregnant.
- Her daughter, Sabian, was later born with Aicardi’s Syndrome, a severe neurological disorder.
- Burch filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) on Sabian’s behalf, alleging the maternal vaccination caused Sabian’s condition.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services opposed the claim, arguing the Vaccine Act covers only a person who “received” a covered vaccine and should be construed narrowly as a waiver of sovereign immunity.
- Burch argued the Vaccine Act is remedial and should be construed broadly to include fetal exposure to vaccines administered to a pregnant mother.

## Issues

1. Whether a child allegedly injured in utero by a vaccine administered to the mother qualifies as a “person who received” a covered vaccine under the Vaccine Act.
2. Whether the statute’s remedial purpose permits expanding eligibility beyond direct vaccine administration despite sovereign-immunity limits.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims denied the petition on statutory-eligibility grounds.
- The court held Sabian was not a “person who received” the vaccine because the vaccine was administered only to the mother, not directly to the child.
- The court declined to treat in utero exposure as equivalent to receipt of the vaccine within the meaning of the Act.
- The court favored narrow construction associated with waivers of sovereign immunity over a broader remedial interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Eligibility for VICP compensation turns on statutory coverage; the injured person must be a person who “received” a covered vaccine.
- “Received” is read to require direct administration of the vaccine to the person claiming injury, not derivative exposure through another individual.
- Waivers of federal sovereign immunity are strictly construed; courts will not extend compensation beyond clear statutory terms.
- A remedial-statute canon cannot expand coverage where the court finds the text does not support the broader interpretation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Vaccine Act does not allow compensation for alleged in utero injuries stemming from a vaccine administered to a pregnant mother because the child did not directly “receive” the vaccine as required by the statute.


Burch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 00-30V, 2001 WL 180129 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 9, 2001)