Behind the Bench: An Insider’s View with Former Chief Special Master Gary Golkiewicz

Gary Golkiewicz: In the early going, we only had about 200 cases, but you understand this is pre-internet, pre-email. I went on vacation and 4,000 cases came in. The delivery trucks were lined up around Lafayette Park.

Leah Durant: I’m Leah V. Durant, and this is Vaccine Law Today, the show where you get real answers about vaccine injury, your legal rights, and what to do next. On today’s episode, a listener question answered by one of our vaccine lawyers, a conversation with the first and longest serving chief special master of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and your questions about what it really means to file a claim. Let’s start today by hearing from another member of our team here at Durant Law. I have Richard Amada with me today in the studio, and Richard is the perfect person to answer this question because he has an active docket of these cases and he’s been representing petitioners in vaccine claims for a number of years. So this question comes from our audience. The question is, what are some of the most common legal and factual issues that you see when representing clients in SIRVA claims?

Richard Amada: Well, Leah, what I find is oftentimes people who have a vaccine injury, they go to a doctor sometime during the course of that injury for some other purpose. They’ve got some other issue. We all have multiple things that we see healthcare providers for. However, because they’re focused on this other thing, the vaccine injury doesn’t make it into the record. And what happens is the court will look at that and think, “Well, I guess they were not having a problem with the vaccine injury at that time, or it would be in the record.” So it’s important that even if you’re seeing a healthcare provider about something else, that you also let that provider know that you have that vaccine injury and it’s ongoing so that it makes it into the record.

Leah Durant: That is fantastic advice. If you have a question you’d like for me or one of my colleagues to answer on a future episode, send it our way at vaccinelaw.com. Now, let’s get into today’s interview. My main guest today is Gary Golkiewicz, the first and longest serving chief special master of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Special masters are the judges of the vaccine court. They review petitions, weigh the medical and legal evidence, and decide whether an injured person qualifies for compensation.

Gary served in that role for over two decades, overseeing thousands of cases and helping shape the way the vaccine court operates to this day. There is truly no one better positioned to pull back the curtain on what happens inside that system. So Gary Golkiewicz, thank you so much for being here today. We are super excited to have you on the podcast. So you’ve probably been one of the single most impactful individuals in the vaccine program, and I’m sure that our listeners are so eager to hear about your experiences. So before we get right into the vaccine program, tell us a little about your path to the US Court of Federal Claims and what attracted you to the program.

Gary Golkiewicz: I actually have an accounting degree. My interest was in finance. I was working in Securities Exchange Commission, had a job lined up, which was defunded, so I was scrambling. I ended up at Health and Human Services actually at what was then called the Grant Appeals Board, which is very fortuitous for two reasons. One, the boss there was the head of mediation for the department and got me involved in mediation back in 1980. Second part is that we put in a new set of rules that year at the board, and those rules are actually the foundation of the vaccine rules now.

Leah Durant: If I may, what year was that?

Gary Golkiewicz: That was 1980 when I started in government. But grants is not what I was interested in for the long term. I learned a lot, but the job opened up at the Court of Federal Claims, then Chief Judge Alex Kozinski hired me. I came over. The Court of Federal Claims, for your listeners, handles money disputes against the federal government. The government’s the defendant in all cases. It’s tax and contracts and large money disputes. I was floating senior clerk that went around and helped the judges on the money end and so forth. I then got involved in management and I was the chief of staff for the new chief judge, Lauren Smith, when Congress approached us about this new legislation. And the Vaccine Act became effective on October 1 of 1988. So we had to hire space, facilities, everything, get that up and running. And we heard our first case in January.

Leah Durant: That’s amazing. In such a short window of time, you’re scrambling to get it all together essentially. You get the funding, you’re hiring the staff, you’re setting it up, and then you get your first case.

Gary Golkiewicz: The first case just came in.

Leah Durant: Do you remember what was the very first case?

Gary Golkiewicz: I had a case from Alaska, and I don’t remember the details of it, but it did become the first attorney’s fees decision. So it set the standards for attorney’s fees for years to come.

Leah Durant: Wow.

Gary Golkiewicz: So that was my background. I was at the court and when jurisdiction came in, they hired me as the chief special master to set it up and that was it.

Leah Durant: Tell us a little more about those early days, what it was like, and if you could talk a little bit about what surprised you the most when you first started hearing these cases.

Gary Golkiewicz: Oh, the first days were very hectic from a management standpoint again, but I also had a full caseload and everyone was scrambling because it was so new. There was a zillion legal issues. Every part of the statute had to be litigated and understood. Probably one of the most interesting people don’t realize when they first started in October of ’88, the statute was set up as we were actually functioning as special masters. Now, your listeners may not understand what a special master is someone that’s hired by a judge to look at a certain piece of the case and to give them guidance, and the judge uses it however they want to use it. Well, that was the same way as the Vaccine Act was structured because it was actually meant to go to the district courts using magistrates as special masters.

Leah Durant: Oh, really? Is that the way that it was originally set up?

Gary Golkiewicz: It was originally passed in 1986 going to the district courts. It was amended in December of ’87 to come to our court of federal claims and then we started, but we were actually that advisor to the judges. We heard the case, but we issued an advisory opinion. The judge was free to do with it whatever they wish. They could just toss it aside. They could use it as basis of their decision, rehear the case and so forth. So it was quickly seen as a waste of resources to do that because we were issuing lengthy opinions. The litigants were getting these decisions, going through a process, getting an award or losing, and then going up to another judge who could toss that decision out and rehear the case.

Leah Durant: Wow. And you guys really, at that point, you’re becoming the subject matter experts.

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, that was the intent of Congress, and that’s why they amended the statute in ’89, not only the waste of resources, but their intention was to have these specialists, these special masters accumulate expertise and then apply it to their cases as they come in. Well, if you just are issuing advisory opinions to another judge and you have 16 judges taking another look at it didn’t make a lot of sense. Now it was amended in ’89 to give the special masters final decision authority. What’s confusing to a lot of petitioners is what is a special master? They are the trial judges in the case, but the name never got changed. They kept the name special master. Over the years has caused a lot of confusion. But it was a learning process for everybody as far as how cases would be handled, the orders coming out from the special masters, where the trials would be held. Even the federal court system didn’t understand who this group was. We had a hard time getting courtrooms, so we would do trials in hotel conference rooms. I did a trial in someone’s living room once.

Leah Durant: I’ve heard some of these stories.

Gary Golkiewicz: Yeah. So it was hectic, but it was fun. And each step of the way we learned and decisions started to go up. The court above started to get an expertise as well in the subject matter and it all rounded into place. But that was in the early going, we only had about 200 cases, but you understand this is pre-internet, pre-email, everything was by paper. So for almost two years, we only had 200 cases and the complaints were that the program wasn’t being advertised enough, people weren’t aware of it. So the Congress actually extended the original statute of limitations to file cases another four months. And I went on vacation and 4,000 cases came in, and this is all paper. The delivery trucks were lined up around Lafayette Park.

Leah Durant: I can imagine it.

Gary Golkiewicz: Yeah, it was very hectic.

Leah Durant: Well, let me jump right into some of the questions that everyone wants to know and focus a little bit on the behind the scenes aspect of these cases. So most petitioners, they have no idea of what’s required, what goes on behind the scenes to actually move these cases through the program. What’s the single most important thing that you wish petitioners understood about the vaccine program and why?

Gary Golkiewicz: I would say that the most important thing is to understand what is being decided. And of course it’s a vaccine injury, but it’s understanding what that decision maker needs to look at. Make sure that you have the medical records, especially now as they’re more current, getting the special master the information upfront, depending on what the type of case is, make sure you have a complete record. Make sure that the issue that’s being alleged is addressed either through the medical records, if it’s a treating doctor that can provide support for you, if it’s an expert that you need to have on board, have that expert ready. For your case to move, for it to have a chance to move quickly, the information needs to be upfront so that you as quickly as possible can get a government response to it that the special master can actually take a look at it. Nothing wastes time more than the special master looking at an incomplete record and then having to go back, get additional information, then redo that process. Everyone wastes time doing that.

Leah Durant: You’ve touched on a number of things that I think are interesting. When you hear from people generally, they’re calling about potentially claims that could be viable as opposed to stuff that just couldn’t be supported. So I think that’s always helpful for folks to come to the program with a general understanding of the types of cases that the court hears and that could be brought forward.

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, the program has changed so much over the years. From the early years, Congress came out with this table of injuries at the start of the program with the original six vaccines, the DPT being the most, not important one, but the one that was focused on. And they had this table of injuries where to meet that table, you would prove that you received that vaccine, you incurred a certain type of injury within a certain timeframe, and it was presumed that the vaccine was the cause of that injury. That table moved cases because it took a lot of the uncertainty out.

I used to tell people we’re not here to litigate the DPT vaccine and so forth. We’re here to understand if you met that table. And so that moved cases. When you moved away from that table, you added vaccines, I think you’re up to 18 now, went from six to 18 and the table hasn’t kept up. With many of those vaccines, if not most, there’s no table to speak of. And so everything you have to prove that the vaccine actually caused it, which is a whole different proof, it’s whole different information base, it’s a whole different focus, and it takes a lot more time. So that is the number one change over the years of the program.

Leah Durant: Wow. Sounds like, of course, the table was the paradigm shift in helping to move these cases through.

Gary Golkiewicz: The people need to understand the program itself is narrowly focused. It’s what that vaccine caused, if it caused anything. So they have to understand that they have to make that proof, they have to provide that information. It’s going to be decided by an impartial jurist, and unfortunately it takes a lot of time. The statute was set up to be fast.

Leah Durant: Expeditious.

Gary Golkiewicz: 420 days. And that’s an interesting point. The original statute when we first got it, started working under it, that 420 days was jurisdictional. If we didn’t get the case done, we lost it. And most importantly, and it goes to that table how well it functioned. We never lost a case. We got hit with so many cases that they had to amend that timeframe. So it’s a petitioner’s option now, whether to stay or go and 99% stay. I think everyone will agree it needs to be amended, fixed, improved upon, but it’s very important. And the foundation’s there.

Leah Durant: It’s there. So here we are, we’re 40 years out from the enactment of the program. And I guess a question that I have for you is, do you believe that the vaccine program of 1986 is the program of today? I think I know the answer to that, but if not, why not? And what do you think could be done about it?

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, it’s clearly not the program that was envisioned or in place when we first started in ’88, passed in ’86. And that is because it started with the six vaccines. There was medical information science that supported that. There was an expectation of 150 cases a year.

Leah Durant: Was that the expectation?

Gary Golkiewicz: That was the expectation.

Leah Durant: And how many do we have per year now?

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, I saw one year I was looking back was 2,000 cases and I think it’s settled in a little over a thousand a year now. But the important thing is you have the same number of special masters, which is statutory, can’t exceed eight. You have 18 vaccines, you don’t have six. You’re getting this large block of cases and you have to shift from a table. When we started, we had a table that was probably governed 90% of the cases that we handled. To give you some perspective of how that impacts, when we did a trial and a table case, if we had to, the issue would be whether or not the person had the defined injury, encephalopathy, seizure disorder, whatever. So we’d have two experts. We’d have one expert on each side. We’d probably have a three or four hour trial, and that was it. We would give bench rulings often or 10, 15 page decisions, and then you go to damages. Now you have mostly causation in fact cases. I see cases sometimes with three experts on each side.

Leah Durant: Multiple reports?

Gary Golkiewicz: Multiple reports. Three, four-day trials, sometimes a follow-up trial after that. The opinions are 40, 50 pages long. In the original days, if there was an appeal, there was very few appeals. It would go up to the court of federal claims judge. That would be the end of the case. Federal circuit saw very few cases. Now you see multiple appeals, so you appeal to the court of federal claims, often a remand to the special master, which generates another opinion, back up to the court of federal claims, up to the federal circuit.

The amount of process involved now is just exponentially greater than what was involved in the early going. And so it’s not the same program because of the number of vaccines have tripled. The number of cases are not 150 a year. They’re over a thousand and plus a year. We’ve had blocks of cases come in. When we had the hepatitis B cases come in, that was a block of four or 500 cases. We were actually down in the late ’90s to about six, 800 cases. And we got hit with the hepatitis B case, which we handled. So you have a different caseload.

Leah Durant: It’s really a different program, really. I mean—

Gary Golkiewicz: It’s a very different program, different need because of it. And unfortunately, for different reasons, those needs are not being addressed, and so the cases take a lot longer.

Leah Durant: Well, what do you think? I mean, do you think that there will be an act of Congress anytime soon to amend the program?

Gary Golkiewicz: There was a major effort back in about 2001. It took about a year. There’s a lot of input from a lot of people that would address the issues, including one that was very dear to the petitioners who would’ve raised the pain and suffering and death benefit awards. They would’ve doubled them and then indexed them to inflation and so forth. And there’s always something that gets hung up and it got hung up on extending the statute of limitations, doubling it from three to six years because of the autism cases. So there was pushback and the whole thing got sunk. You had Henry Waxman and Orrin Hatch with Ronald Reagan signing off on it.

Leah Durant: Well, who didn’t like it?

Gary Golkiewicz: He didn’t like it. No, he did not. No, he didn’t. He signed it, but didn’t like it.

Leah Durant: Did he call it corporate… Something. I just remembered there being some reference to… And I get it. I mean, I understand, but just thankful that the program survived in those early stages and made it to what we have today. And hopeful that at some point Congress will be able to come together again and amend what is a very good program. As you said, that the foundation is there. We just need some updates to get us to where it’ll be at its top optimal functioning.

Gary Golkiewicz: They have to decrease the workload on the decision makers and have only cases that truly need a judge on it to decide it. You have a lot of administrative type cases that could be resolved short of going to the judge. It’s like the Veterans Affairs model, an administrative process and then it feeds into a judicial process. If you can resolve a large percentage, if you look at the last time I looked at the stats, 80% of the cases were SIRVA and GBS Flu, CIDP. So if you can address 80% of the cases and take the load off the other 20%, which science hasn’t caught up to law, if you get those 20% up to the judges and look at and develop and so forth, then the pressure’s off, the process frees up.

Leah Durant: That’s right. And probably is more in line with the original thinking of what the program was intended to be back then. I mean, it’s just talking to the stakeholders and figuring out what would be the best for petitioners and for the program generally of how to revise it.

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, one idea I had, and don’t get too many people that like it, since I came from an administrative board, HHS has doctors, lawyers, they see every case before and give Justice Department a read on how we want to handle this case. Do we want to concede it? Do we want to negotiate it? Do we want to contest it? Why not give HHS a timeframe, pick it 120, 180, one year, whatever, to look at the case and decide that we want to put a dollar figure out on the table and give the petitioner that opportunity—

Leah Durant: Early in the process.

Gary Golkiewicz: … before it ever gets to the court. It doesn’t even go to the court.

Leah Durant: Sure.

Gary Golkiewicz: Let HHS resolve the case on the front end. This is the VA model, administrative upfront and only feed those cases that fail the administrative process. Whether or not it’s HHS decides that it’s not compensable, sends it to justice. But HHS is going to have guidelines because you want them to do it quickly.

Leah Durant: Sure.

Gary Golkiewicz: We think it’s a low non-surgical case, short period of time resolved. Here’s your dollar figure. If it’s a one, two, three surgery or one, two surgery case, it’s in this figure, maybe have three figures. And if it’s an outlier, it’s an outlier. Triage the cases early, and if you can reduce the number of cases that feed into that system, you’re going to reduce the amount of pressure. You’re going to free up time.

Leah Durant: I couldn’t agree with it more. And I think coming from my perspective where a lot of our cases are the SIRVA and GBS cases, I mean, people really just want to… They want to put the stuff behind them. You know what I mean? I mean, they want to move on with their lives, and there’s nothing worse than seeing something languish when you know and everybody knows that it’s a case that could and should just be resolved.

Gary Golkiewicz: I continue to mediate. I was a primary mediator when I was a special master and I continued to do that in retirement. And the part I like the most is meeting the families—

Leah Durant: Sure.

Gary Golkiewicz: … the injured, talking to them, explaining to them, and I think we owe it to them. I have always felt that way. This program’s in place for them so they should have an understanding of their case, why it’s going one way or another way, why it’s taking so long, why win, lose? Why are they saying—

Leah Durant: They’re the only reason we’re here. Unfortunately, I think that gets lost.

Gary Golkiewicz: It has gotten lost over time. And so to explain to them how these cases work, and when you see the looks on their face in terms of why are they doing this or why are you doing this? Why did they need this information? So it’s gotten too complex. Medical issues are complex. You can’t have an epidemiological study for every type of injury that’s out there. It’s not going to happen. So it’s difficult. And I think that’s probably the program has gotten more complex than what was originally anticipated and what it was designed for. The litigation system you’re operating under right now was put in place in 1988 with six vaccines and 150 cases a year.

Leah Durant: This is a good segue. It’s making me think about the human aspect of some of these cases. From our side of the process, we see cases every day that really move us. Some of them really stick with us, moms, dads, grandparents, that kind of thing. You’ve seen a lot of cases over the years, handled a lot of cases over the years. Is there anything, any particular case or fact pattern that’s just stuck with you?

Gary Golkiewicz: The polio cases stick with me the most. Somehow in your mind you can rationalize and the children, the many children cases that we handled early on for neurologically impaired death cases, your feelings there for the families more than… The impact on the families are just incredible. But somehow as a human, you rationalize that the child at least wasn’t aware of it. I handled all the polio litigation in the country in the early ’90s. The only polio in this country was from the vaccine. This oral polio vaccine has a live virus in it. If you have a immune system issue, you could get polio or we had 15 cases of contact polio each year. That is the child, they excrete the virus and if the family member wasn’t vaccinated, they would get polio. And I had those cases. I did Mennonite Farmer, never got vaccinated and a severe case of polio.

And we would try these cases. They were conceited, but we would try the damages because the damages were in eight figures over a lifetime, over a hundred million… We’re building hospital rooms in their house. They were incredible, but at those, the child would be there. They were beautiful children. Mentally, they’re completely intact, normal. Physically, I had a case in Cheyenne, Wyoming with such a trial, and the little child was in sixth grade and they had a video. We did day in the life videos commonly and admit the child. She looked like a little Barbie doll laying on a blanket in her classroom while her kids were interacting with her and was talking to me and wanting to meet me—

Leah Durant: Wow.

Gary Golkiewicz: … when she comes to Washington and so forth. I can tell you after that trial, the Justice Department lawyer, the petitioner’s counsel, myself went to the local bar and you never forget that.

Leah Durant: Never forget it.

Gary Golkiewicz: Never forget that. The polio cases were extremely, extremely difficult. It was actually, this is a part of the vaccine program that doesn’t get talked about. Two of the vaccines, the DPT, of course, changed to the acellular version, and I believe you’re seeing very few DPT cases now, neurologically impaired. That was most of the work we did in the early part of the program. Polio regimen has changed because of this, and it was because of a gentleman in Virginia, his son got polio. He became the petitioner’s rep on the advisory commission. He fought like crazy when he fought the doctors—

Leah Durant: Wow.

Gary Golkiewicz: … because the oral polio gives better immunity than the IPV, the inactivated version, but it gives polio. But eventually they changed that regimen. Now you get an IPV before you get an oral polio, so you have some immunity. So I don’t know what the numbers are on the polio cases anymore, but I know that did drastically. So the program has had that beneficial impact.

Leah Durant: Absolutely. On public health.

Gary Golkiewicz: On public health.

Leah Durant: Yeah, absolutely. What do you want vaccine injured petitioners and their families to know about the people on the other side of the bench who decide their claims?

Gary Golkiewicz: I think it’s tough when you have a case and a judge up there is going to tell you that you won or lost. It’s a difficult thing, but that’s their job. The thing to understand is one, they’re not doctors. Two is they’re not policy officials. So they have an obligation to find facts, to look and determine the medicine as best they can and render a decision. That’s their job. I’ve been asked this question many times over the years. You have this little child affected by polio. How could you possibly rule against or not give maximum money and so forth? And it’s something you get coldly objective because that’s your job. It doesn’t mean you have all the feelings in the world for them. Like as I said, I have two children. Everyone in our office had kids.

Leah Durant: Sure.

Gary Golkiewicz: Our law clerks had babies while we were there. I adore children, but faced with a case in which I don’t think the evidence matches up, I would find against that person and I would not apologize for it. When that special master either issues a ruling on a particular part of your case or on your case or whatever, they’re not doing it with any sense of enjoyment. They’re not doing it with any cruelty in mind and so forth. It’s their best effort to look at the information and render a decision. They’re trained to do that. They’re very good people. There’s very good lawyers on the justice. There are very good lawyers on the petitioner’s side, and there’s very good lawyers up as special masters. I had a case that went up on appeal and it was affirmed by a senior judge who was a friend of mine, went up to the federal circuit and they reversed us both.

I was talking to that judge and I was complaining. I said I disagree with the federal circuit, of course, and they cherry-picked da, da, da. And he looked at me and he said, “Gary, don’t ever forget.” He said, “They’re not last because they’re right, but they are right because they’re last.” And that special master, for the most part, is going to be right simply because they’re last. It doesn’t mean that they are actually right. They make mistakes because they are… Unfortunately, we have human beings involved. Whenever you have human beings involved, you have—

Leah Durant: The opportunities for error.

Gary Golkiewicz: The opportunity for error.

Leah Durant: Yeah. Did Congress intend for petitioners to be able to leave the program and sue in civil court?

Gary Golkiewicz: Oh, they absolutely gave them that right. Now, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision makes it very difficult to sue manufacturers. Now, doctors, it’s also the administrators. And actually, one of the polio cases, it’s actually a law firm developed out of this. Their first case is the doctor gave the oral polio to an immunocompromised child who got polio. I got the case and the petitioner wanted to leave the program after their 420 days. I was concerned because it was an attorney I didn’t know, so that they had full information. So we had a call and I asked the attorney, “Are they aware of this?” They were very much aware. They wanted to sue that doctor. And I was told afterwards they were very successful in suing the doctor. But that opportunity for suing was there from the get-go and has been used sparingly. I don’t have any statistics on it, but the vaccine advisory commission would ask every once in a while, people that tracked it. There weren’t many instances of suits. I don’t know how the SIRVA cases with the administrators, how that’s working.

Leah Durant: It’s interesting. Every now and then, it surprises me how many pharmacies are just not aware of the program. You get the petitioner who comes to you that says, “Oh, this pharmacy offered to pay this amount or that amount.” And so it’s just interesting to me that even in today’s day and age, we’re still dealing with large scale pharmacies that just don’t seem to understand that the program exists or how it impacts them and their bottom line. The fact that we have way more cases than Congress intended, we still have the same number of special masters. If Congress were to act tomorrow, let’s say if we could wave a magic wand, what do you think is the single most important thing that you would like to see changed? If you could, if you had your way, “Hey, this would make the program perfect.” What would that be?

Gary Golkiewicz: I think to first start, you have to deal effectively with the SIRVA cases. I think everything, resources, there’s efforts to get more special masters and so forth. You’d need to double the Special Masters. So you have to deal with the SIRVA cases and that’s in everyone’s best interest. It’s in the petitioner’s best interest, it’s in the program best interest, it’s a resource, everything. So that would be one is deal with the SIRVA and come up with an effective way of making the table relevant and keeping it up to date. I actually was asked by Canada, a law professor was working on a system to propose a system for Canada, and they asked me this question, what’s the biggest problem? And I told them it was the table not keeping up with new vaccines.

If you can keep the table relevant so that most of your cases are working through the table, that would reduce the strain on the special masters because if you have more table cases, they were getting conceded by HHS, which would get them into damages and so forth. And to contract with them every year, two years, whatever to look at vaccines, new literature and so forth. And then it gets into the policy area. The policy area is what standard are you going to use in putting that injury onto the table? We talked about the original vaccine table, which was legislated by Congress based on a report. One of the large medical groups, I’ll leave it nameless, came out against the vaccine injury table because it didn’t reflect science.

Leah Durant: And looking back at your career in the program and even today, what are you most proud of?

Gary Golkiewicz: Probably most proud of those early days. Not only did we not have any experience, the Justice Department didn’t have that experience. HHS didn’t have that experience. We had 4,500 cases that got dumped into our lap in six months actually.

Leah Durant: Wow.

Gary Golkiewicz: I convened several meetings with the Petitioner’s Bar and the Justice Department to get their ideas. There was a lot of squawking and we worked through it. We have an obligation to get this case done to determine whether this person was injured by a vaccine and what that compensated. We have a joint obligation. I felt very strongly that way.

And I would say it from the bench. If a petitioner couldn’t get a piece of information, I would look at the Department of Justice and ask them. And there’s always going to be tension. There’s always going to be cases where the two sides disagree and that’s all right. They should jointly produce the information, make sure that special master has all the information as quickly as possible, and innocent special master makes the call.

Leah Durant: I mean, you have spent years working within this program that has served as an example for similar programs around the country. How do you envision the program 20 years from now? That’s to say, what does the program look like in your mind in 2046?

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, I’d like to say that it’s going to grow because that’ll give petitioners a singular place to seek compensation for a certain injury. For it to grow, we have to amend it along the lines of what we’ve been discussing. They have to come up and simplify it.

They have to make it more administrative, but at the same time protect that petitioner’s right to produce information and get that independent decision from a special master or judge, whomever. But to make that work, because you have COVID lurking in the background, you have a new cancer vaccine, you’re going to have more vaccines coming out. So it’s going to feed into this program eventually.

Leah Durant: Well, hopefully we’re looking at a system where we just continue to evolve and as you said, to grow and to address these issues in the next years to come. Gary, thank you so much for joining us. I will say you’re one of the few people in this program who can speak to it, not just as a former special master, but as a former chief special master and someone who’s had a longstanding impact on the program. So thank you very much for all you’ve done for the program and for the country. And thank you for joining us today.

Gary Golkiewicz: Well, thank you for the invitation. It was a pleasure.

Leah Durant: Before we wrap up, I want to answer another listener question, and this is one about how the VICP actually works. The question is, if I file a claim in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, will I have to sue my doctor?

The short answer is no, and this is actually one of the most important things to understand about the VICP. When you file a claim, you are not suing your doctor, your nurse, the vaccine manufacturer, or the pharmacy that administered your vaccine. You’re filing a petition against the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

That’s actually one of the reasons the program was created in the first place, to provide a no-fault compensation system that didn’t require injured patients to take on their healthcare providers in court. This matters for a few reasons. First, it makes the process less adversarial and in many cases faster than traditional litigation.

Second, it means you don’t have to prove that anyone did something wrong, only that your injury is connected to the vaccine. The takeaway here is that filing a VICP claim is not about pointing fingers at your doctor. It’s about accessing a federal program that exists specifically to compensate people in your situation.

If you have a question you’d like me to answer on a future episode, send it our way at vaccinelaw.com. Thanks for listening to Vaccine Law Today. If you think you might have a vaccine injury case, visit us at vaccinelaw.com. Follow or subscribe wherever you get your podcast, and I’ll see you next time. New episodes come out every two weeks.