行政法院長年以來,以尊重「獨立專家判斷餘地」為由,多依循預防接種救濟審議小組之認定結果,於本事件中最高行政法院則清楚說明,當審議小組所為之因果關係推估,其適用法律構成要件涵攝事實關係時,如有出於錯誤之事實認定或不完全之資訊者,法院對於審議小組救濟判斷決定具有審查權;其次,關於因果關係之證明,法院認為在預防接種救濟案件上,須依行政訴訟法準用民事訴訟法第277條但書而倒置舉證責任,此不僅是預防接種救濟辦法對於「無法排除因果」態樣亦予以救濟補助意旨之體現,如由預防接種之社會整體性意義加以考量,不將疫苗可能發生不明原因副作用之風險歸諸於接種民眾身上,具體實踐了預防接種救濟因果關係認定之緩和,堪謂符合預防接種被害救濟制度之宗旨。
On the ground of margin of appreciation, the decisions of Supreme Administrative Court used to be in accordance with the opinion of Review Subcommittee on the relief of immunization hazards. However, in the case herein, the Supreme Administrative Court held that if it could be demonstrated that the Subcommittee's opinion regarding causation element is not capable of withstanding rectitude analysis, the judge is entitled to review it, moreover, the proviso of Article 227 Code of Civil Procedure should be applied mutatis mutandis to this action to reverse the burden of proof on causation. This decision revealed that such reversal should apply to the "possibly vaccine-related" cases listed in the Regulations Governing Collection and Review of Relief Fund for Victims of Immunization. This article holds, in concord with the court, that on account of the significance of vaccination on the public health, the burden of proof on the vaccine victims concerning the causation between vaccination and the injury should be properly alleviated.