【醫療行政法】H1N1疫苗接種救濟案：預防接種救濟之判斷餘地與舉證責任【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Margin of Appreciation of Remedy for the Vaccination and Its Burden of Proof
裁判字號 最高行政法院106年度判字第355號
引用法條 行政訴訟法第136條、民事訴訟法第277條、行政訴訟法第255條第1項、第98條第1項前段
本件為臺灣於2009年H1N1疫苗施打期間相當受社會矚目之事件，救濟申請人因其子於2009年11月間接種H1N1新型流感疫苗後受有傷害，經診斷為急性瀰漫性腦脊髓炎，雖經治療仍於2012年8月間死亡，隨後於同年9月間向衛生福利部申請預防接種受害救濟。本件經預防接種受害救濟審議小組審定與本次預防接種無關，不符合救濟之給付要件，嗣提起行政訴訟，終經上訴最高行政法院遭駁回後確定。最高行政法院認本件應予以救濟。由於本件涉及疫苗施打與不良反應間因果關係之判斷，饒富探討價值，而最高行政法院所揭示之判斷原則，堪為臺灣疫苗不良反應救濟史上相當重要之里程碑。本其判決評析即由醫、法實務家，就疫苗救濟之因果關係及舉證責任等核心議題進行評析。
This case is about an important case which was happened in Taiwan during the period of the vaccination of H1N1, 2009. The application of the legal remedy based on the death of the son of the applicant who had gotten injury after injecting a vaccine of H1N1 and had been examined as Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM). He died at August, 2012 and his parent applied the remedy for the vaccination from Ministry of Health and Welfare at September. After being rejected, because there was no relation between the vaccination and the death which was believed by the commission of the remedy, an administrative action was filed. The remedy was finally confirmed by supreme administrative court. Due to the judgment of the causal relationship between the vaccination and the negative reaction in this case is great worth discussing and the judgment by supreme administrative court could be the landmark for the remedy of the vaccination which has a negative reaction, the causal relationship of the remedy of the vaccination and burden of proof are the core issues.
081-107
