Where the special master of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
(hereafter noted as "the Program ") violates the 2017 Secretary of Health and Human
Services ' (hereafter referred to as "the Secretary " or "respondent ") posted Rule that
revised the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) (hereafter noted
as "the Act"), under what circumstance can the special master arbitrarily overlook the
Secretary 's policy changes to shape a capricious decision?

Where the name implies a childhood law, does the Act fairly represent the
rights of children in a "person " law and the constitutional right to a fair jury trial?

Where the Constitution mandates justice for all, does the Program adequately
offer resources and legal representation to petitioners with disabilities?

Where the Act was written to protect commercial interests for public health
concerns, where is a line drawn to protect an individual 's constitutional rights to make
informed decisions, to discuss ideas and science, and to freely make choices regarding
drug and safety issues?

Where the Secretary manages multiple healthcare regulatory agencies, under
what circumstances can the Program offer nonconforming science and facts which
violate administrative and regulatory rules if held independently as facts?

Where the Secretary promises citizens to operate with utmost care and
efficiency, under what discretion may the Secretary or any agent violate this promise
by adding regulation and rules with no certified cost savings and dire added risks?

Where the special master of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) violates the 2017 Secretary of Health and Human Services' posted Rule that revised the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), under what circumstance can the special master arbitrarily overlook the Secretary's policy changes to shape a capricious decision?