VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02486
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02486
Petitioner: E.W.
Filed: 2003-10-23
Decided: 2014-02-12
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: autism spectrum disorder
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 23, 2003, Lin Yuan, as the parent of E.W., a minor, filed a petition for vaccine compensation alleging that E.W. was injured by one or more vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The case caption identified the underlying claim as an autism matter. The public decision does not specify the vaccines administered, the dates of vaccination, E.W.'s age at the time of vaccination, the onset of symptoms, or the clinical history. The case was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), which encompassed over 5,400 cases alleging that autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were caused by vaccines. Special Master George L. Hastings Jr. noted that the OAP had litigated two main theories of causation: one positing that the measles component of the MMR vaccine caused ASD, and another alleging that thimerosal in vaccines directly affected infant brain development and contributed to ASD. The test cases for both of these theories had been rejected. Petitioners remaining in the OAP were then required to decide whether to pursue their individual cases with new evidence or take other actions to exit the Program. The petitioner in this case did not respond to court orders. On August 22, 2013, the petitioner was ordered to state whether she intended to proceed with the case. After receiving no response, a second order was issued on October 31, 2013, directing the petitioner to proceed or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order was sent by certified mail to the petitioner's last known address and was returned as undeliverable. The court attempted to locate a new address without success. A third order to show cause was issued on December 17, 2013, which was also returned as undeliverable. Special Master Hastings dismissed the case on February 12, 2014, finding that the petitioner had failed to prosecute, failed to follow court orders, and failed to file sufficient medical records or expert medical opinions. The record did not demonstrate that E.W. suffered an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, nor did it contain medical opinion or other persuasive evidence that E.W.'s autism spectrum disorder was vaccine-caused. The decision included a standard notice regarding public access and redaction. No vaccine injury compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Underlying claim for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for minor E.W., filed Oct. 23, 2003, by Lin Yuan. Specific vaccines, vaccination dates, age at vaccination, symptom onset, clinical history, and case-specific medical theory are not detailed in the public decision. The case was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), where two primary causation theories (MMR/measles and thimerosal) were litigated in test cases and ultimately rejected. Petitioner failed to respond to court orders dated Aug. 22, Oct. 31, and Dec. 17, 2013, which directed her to state intent to proceed or show cause for dismissal. Court orders sent to the address of record were returned undeliverable, and attempts to locate a new address were unsuccessful. Special Master George L. Hastings Jr. dismissed the case on Feb. 12, 2014, for failure to prosecute, failure to follow court orders, insufficient proof, lack of evidence of a Table injury, and absence of medical opinion or persuasive evidence of vaccine causation. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly. No injury compensation was awarded. The decision was filed publicly on Mar. 19, 2014.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02486-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-03-19
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/12/14) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master George L. Hastings. (tjk) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:03-vv-02486-UNJ Document 34 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 03-2486V
Filed: February 12, 2014
Not to be Published
*******************************************
LIN YUAN, Parent of E.W., a minor, *
* Autism; Failure to
Petitioner, * Prosecute; Failure to
* Follow Court Orders;
v. * Dismissal
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN *
SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*******************************************
DECISION1
On October 23, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),2 alleging that E.W. was
injured by a vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. See § 14.
On August 22, 2013, petitioner was ordered to inform the court whether petitioner
intended to proceed with this case. Petitioner did not respond to that order.
On October 31, 2013, petitioner was again ordered to inform the court whether petitioner
intended to proceed with this case, or otherwise “show cause,” within thirty days, why this case
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order was sent to petitioner’s address of
record by certified mail and was returned to the court as undeliverable. The court endeavored to
find a new address for petitioner to no avail. On December 17, 2013, petitioner was again
ordered to inform the court whether petitioner intended to proceed with this case, or otherwise
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to
post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44
U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and
move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will
delete such material from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-
660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or
“the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:03-vv-02486-UNJ Document 34 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 3
"showcause" within thirty days, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
The order was sentto petitioner's address ofrecord by certified mail and was again returned to
the court as undeliverable.
I. The Omnibus Autism Proceeding
This case is one ofmore than 5,400 cases filed underthe Program in which petitioners
alleged that conditions known as "autism" or "autism spectrum disorders" ["ASD"] were caused
by one or more vaccinations. Adetailed history ofthe controversy regarding vaccines and
autism, along with ahistory ofthe development ofthe OAP, was set forth inthe six entitlement
decisions issued by three special masters as "testcases" for two theories ofcausation litigated in
theOAPandwillnotberepeatedhere.
Ultimately, the Petitioners' Steering Committee ["PSC"], an organization formed by
attorneys representing petitioners inthe OAP, litigated six test cases presenting two different
theories on the causation ofASDs. The first theory alleged that the measles portion ofthe
measles, mumps, rubella vaccine could cause ASDs. That theory was presented in three separate
Program test cases during several weeks oftrial in 2007. The second theory alleged that the
mercury contained inthimerosal-containing vaccines could directly affect an infant's brain,
thereby substantially contributing to the causation ofASD. Thattheory was presented inthree
additionaltest casesduring severalweeks oftrial in2008.
Decisions in each ofthe three test cases pertaining to the PSC's first theory rejected the
petitioners' causation theories. Cedillo, 2009 WL 331968, aff'd, 89 Fed. CI. 158 (2009) aff'd
617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Hazlehurst, 2009 WL 332306, aff'd, 88 Fed. CI. 473 (2009) '
aff'd, 604 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Snyder, 2009 WL 332044, aff'd, 88 Fed. CI. 706 (2009).5
Decisions in each ofthe three "testcases"pertaining to the PSC's second theory also rejected the
petitioners' causation theories, and petitioners in each ofthe three cases chose not to appeal
Dwyer, 2010 WL 892250; King, 2010 WL 892296; Mead, 2010 WL 892248. Thus, the
proceedings inthese sixtestcases are concluded. Petitioners remaining intheOAP must now
decide whether topursue their cases, and submit new evidence oncausation, ortake other action
to exitthe Program. The petitioner inthis case has failed to inform the courthowpetitioner
intends to proceed.
The Orderfiled December 17, 2013, contained atypographical error in footnote one indicatingthatan
alternativeaddressforpetitionerwas located;howeveranalternativeaddresswasnotlocatedafterthe
courtendeavoredtolocate one. Priortofiling theinstant Decision thecourtagain endeavoredtolocate
an alternative address to no avail.
4The Theory 1cases are Cedillo v. Sec'y, HHS, No. 98-916V, 2009 WL 331968 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 12,2009);Hazlehurstv. Sec'y, HHS, No. 03-654V, 2009 WL 332306(Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12,
2009); Snyderv. Sec'y, HHS, No. 01-162V, 2009 WL 332044(Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009). The
Theory 2cases are Dwyerv. Sec'y, HHS, No. 03-1202V, 2010 WL 892250 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 12,
2010); Kingv. Sec'y, HHS, No. 03-584V, 2010 WL 892296 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 12, 2010); Mead
v. Sec'y, HHS, No.03-215V, 2010WL892248 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 12, 2010).
Petitioners inSnyderdid not appeal the decision ofthe U.S. Court ofFederal Claims.

Case 1:03-vv-02486-UNJ Document 34 Filed 03/19/14 Page 3 of 3
II. Failure to Prosecute
It is petitioner's duty to ensure the court has avalid address to which itcan send filings.
Failure to respond to acourt order because petitioner has failed to update her address ofrecord is
deemed noncompliance with acourt order, and noncompliance will not betolerated. As I
reminded petitioner inmy December 17, 2013 Order, failure to follow court orders, as well as
failure tofile medical records oranexpertmedical opinion, shall result indismissal of
petitioner's claim. Tsekouras v. Sec'y, HHS, 26 CI. Ct. 439 (1992), aff'dper curiam, 991 F.2d
810 (Fed. Cir. 1993);Sapharas v. Sec'y, HHS, 35 Fed. CI. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 21(b).
III. Causation in Fact
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that E.W.
suffered a"Table Injury" - i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table- corresponding
to one ofE.W.'s vaccinations, or 2) that E.W. suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-l1(c)(1). Under the Vaccine Act, aspecial
master cannot findapetitionerhasprovenhercasebyapreponderance oftheevidence based
upon "the claims ofapetitioner alone, unsubstantiated bymedical records orbymedical
opinion." §300aa-13(a) (2006). Petitionerhas failed to file sufficientmedical records and
evidence inthis case. Thus, anexamination ofthe record did not uncover any evidence that
E.W. suffered a"Table Injury." Further, the record does not contain amedical opinion orany
otherpersuasive evidenceindicatingthatE.W.'s autismspectrum disorderwasvaccine-caused.
Accordingly, itisclearfromtherecordinthiscasethatpetitionerhasfailedto
demonstrate eitherthatE.W. suffered a"Table Injury" orthatE.W. injuries were "actually
caused" byavaccination. This caseisdismissed forinsufficient proofand for failureto
prosecute. The clerkshall enterjudgmentaccordingly.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
George L. Hastings
Special Master
6This documentconstitutes my final "Decision" in this case, pursuantto 42 U.S.C. §300aa-12(d)(3)(A).
Ifpetitionerwishes to have this case reviewed by aJudge ofthe United States CourtofFederal Claims, a
motionforreview ofthis decision must befiled within 30days. After 30 days the Clerk ofthis Court
shallenterjudgment inaccordwiththisdecision. Ifpetitionerwishesto preservewhateverright
petitionermayhaveto fileacivil suit(that isa lawsuit inanothercourt) petitionermustfilean "election
torejectjudgment inthiscaseandfileacivilaction"within90daysofthefilingofthejudgment. 42
U.S.C. §300aa-21(a).