| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | ''Commonwealth v. McDonald'', 11 Mass. App. Ct. 944, 945, 416 N.E.2d 992, 993-94 (1981). | | ''Commonwealth v. McDonald'', 11 Mass. App. Ct. 944, 945, 416 N.E.2d 992, 993-94 (1981). |
| | | | |
| | + | There were no other references to "positional asphyxiation" in a court decision until 1985, when a federal appellate court uncritically repeatedly an assertion that an individual being taken into custody by police had died from positional asphyxiation: |
| | + | {{cquote|After being cradle cuffed, Peter continued to kick, alternating between going into a rage and being calm. In his quiet periods, Peter moved his head from side to side and conversed with his parents. During one of the calm periods, the officers noticed that Peter had stopped breathing, and they immediately tried to resuscitate him. Their efforts proved to be of no avail, and Peter died of positional asphyxiation as a result of his inability to breathe.}} |
| | + | ''Vizbaras v. Prieber'', 761 F.2d 1013, 1015 (4th Cir. 1985). |
| | ==False basis for denying compensation for vaccine injury== | | ==False basis for denying compensation for vaccine injury== |
| | Positional asphyxiation is [[fake science]] used by the government to deny compensation for [[vaccine]] injury: "For these reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the cause of Mat's death was positional asphyxia, a factor not related to his earlier receipt of the DTaP vaccine. Consequently, Ms. Nordwall is not entitled to compensation." ''Nordwall v. Sec'y of HHS'', 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 86, *34. | | Positional asphyxiation is [[fake science]] used by the government to deny compensation for [[vaccine]] injury: "For these reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the cause of Mat's death was positional asphyxia, a factor not related to his earlier receipt of the DTaP vaccine. Consequently, Ms. Nordwall is not entitled to compensation." ''Nordwall v. Sec'y of HHS'', 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 86, *34. |
| Line 17: |
Line 20: |
| | *''Bohn v. Sec'y of HHS'', No. 16-0265V, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2005, at *22 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 23, 2021) (*Dr. McCusker concurs with Dr. Kohlmeier's determination that G.B.'s death resulted from "probable positional asphyxia.'"). | | *''Bohn v. Sec'y of HHS'', No. 16-0265V, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2005, at *22 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 23, 2021) (*Dr. McCusker concurs with Dr. Kohlmeier's determination that G.B.'s death resulted from "probable positional asphyxia.'"). |
| | *''Vandergriff v. Sec'y of HHS'', No. 18-919V, 2019 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2320, at *11-13 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 31, 2019): "the Pentacel vaccine on March 28, 2017" and the infant "developed a fever that persisted until the day he died." But the court used "positional asphyxiation" in order to deny vaccine compensation "as a result of asphyxia due to crib positioning. ... [The pathologist]] determined the cause of death to be "positional asphyxiation due to prone sleeping position." ... The significant condition listed on the death certificate is "unsafe sleep position." Id. How the injury occurred is listed on the death certificate as "placed in prone position for nap." | | *''Vandergriff v. Sec'y of HHS'', No. 18-919V, 2019 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2320, at *11-13 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 31, 2019): "the Pentacel vaccine on March 28, 2017" and the infant "developed a fever that persisted until the day he died." But the court used "positional asphyxiation" in order to deny vaccine compensation "as a result of asphyxia due to crib positioning. ... [The pathologist]] determined the cause of death to be "positional asphyxiation due to prone sleeping position." ... The significant condition listed on the death certificate is "unsafe sleep position." Id. How the injury occurred is listed on the death certificate as "placed in prone position for nap." |
| − | *Lord v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 12-255V, 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 144, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 9, 2016) (relying on the above Nordwall decision) (mot. for review denied, 83 Fed. Cl. 477 (Fed. Cl. 2008)); | + | *Lord v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 12-255V, 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 144, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 9, 2016) (relying on the above Nordwall decision) (mot. for review denied, 83 Fed. Cl. 477 (Fed. Cl. 2008)). |
| | | | |
| | == Fifth Circuit == | | == Fifth Circuit == |