VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00568
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00568
Petitioner: Q.D.
Filed: 2015-03-17
Decided: 2015-07-28
Vaccine: DTAP
Vaccination date: 2009-09-08
Condition: regression
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Melissa Dalton, as the legal representative of a minor child named Q.D., filed a petition on March 17, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that Q.D. suffered from a regression caused by the DTAP, MMR, Poliovirus IPV, and Varicella vaccines received on September 8, 2009. During a status conference on January 22, 2015, Petitioner's counsel indicated a likely motion to dismiss, which was subsequently filed. Respondent expressed no opposition to this motion. To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" listed in the Vaccine Injury Table or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The Special Master found no evidence in the record that Q.D. suffered a Table Injury. Furthermore, the record lacked sufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the vaccinations caused the alleged regression. The public decision notes that under the Vaccine Act, a petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician, and that this record was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on July 28, 2015. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical records, physician's opinions, or the mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Melissa Dalton, as legal representative of minor Q.D., alleged that DTAP, MMR, Poliovirus IPV, and Varicella vaccines administered on September 8, 2009, caused a regression. The petition was filed on March 17, 2015. The case was dismissed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on July 28, 2015, for insufficient proof. The Special Master found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient persuasive evidence that the vaccinations actually caused the alleged regression. The public decision stated the record lacked the required medical records or competent physician's opinion to support the claim, and did not describe the specific mechanism of causation or name any experts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00568-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/17/2015) Regarding 55 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:11-vv-00568-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 11-568
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MELISSA DALTON, * Filed: March 17, 2015
legal representative of a minor child, Q.D., *
*
Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Theodore G. Pashos, Niedner Bodeux Carmichael Huff Lenox and Pashos, LLP, St. Charles,
MO, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On September 6, 2011, Melissa Dalton filed a petition, as legal representative of a minor
child, Q.D., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the
“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that Q.D. suffered from a “regression” that was caused by
the DTAP, MMR, Poliovirus IPV, and Varicella vaccines that he received on September 8, 2009.
See Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1).
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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.A. ' 300aa-10 – 34 (2006)) [hereinafter
“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:11-vv-00568-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2
During a status conference in this case that was held on January 22, 2015, Petitioner’s
counsel indicated that he thought it likely that Petitioner would seek dismissal of this case. Order
at 1 (ECF No. 52). She has now done so. Unopposed Motion for Decision of Dismissal (ECF No.
54). In that motion requesting dismissal of this case, Petitioner also represented that Respondent
expressed no opposition to the motion. Id. at 2.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See §§13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record, however, does not
uncover any evidence that Q.D. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain
sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury that Q.D. experienced could have
been caused by the vaccinations received.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely
on his claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the
opinion of a competent physician. §13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in the record
for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must
be dismissed. §11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2