VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00825
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00825
Petitioner: Tara A. Gill
Filed: 2016-02-11
Decided: 2016-02-11
Vaccine: trivalent influenza
Vaccination date: 2009-12-18
Condition: multiple sclerosis and immune deficiency
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Tara A. Gill filed a petition alleging that a trivalent influenza vaccine administered on December 18, 2009, caused her to develop multiple sclerosis and immune deficiency. On the same date, she also received an H1N1 influenza vaccine. The H1N1 vaccine is not covered under the Vaccine Injury Table and therefore not compensable. The decision notes that to prove causation, a petitioner must establish a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The petitioner's counsel indicated that Ms. Gill intended to pursue a civil suit against the vaccine manufacturers and moved to dismiss the case in the Court of Federal Claims. The Special Master granted this motion, dismissing the case. The dismissal allows Ms. Gill to proceed with her civil action against the manufacturers. No compensation was awarded as the case was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00825-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-03
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/11/2016) regarding 71 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Laura D Millman. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00825-UNJ Document 72 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-825V
Filed: February 11, 2016
Not to be Published
*************************************
TARA A. GILL, *
*
Petitioner, * Petitioner’s motion to dismiss
* in order to sue civilly granted;
v. * trivalent influenza vaccine; H N
1 1
* influenza vaccine given in December 2009;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * multiple sclerosis; immune deficiency
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
*************************************
Michael B. Cohen, Altoona, PA, for petitioner.
Jennifer L. Reynaud, Washington, DC, for respondent.
MILLMAN, Special Master
DECISION1
On November 29, 2012, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that trivalent influenza vaccine
administered December 18, 2009 caused multiple sclerosis and immune deficiency. See Pet.
Preamble and ¶ 30. On the same date, petitioner also received H N influenza vaccine which, for
1 1
the winter flu season of 2009-10, is not covered under the Vaccine Injury Table and, therefore, is
not compensable under the Vaccine Act.
During a telephonic status conference held on February 11, 2016, petitioner’s counsel
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the
special master intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special
masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial
information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioners have 14
days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special
master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the special
master shall redact such material from public access.

Case 1:12-vv-00825-UNJ Document 72 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 3
stated that petitioner had decided to sue the vaccine manufacturers and moved to dismiss orally.
The undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and DISMISSES this case.
DISCUSSION
To satisfy her burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must prove by preponderant
evidence: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a
showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y
of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Althen, the Federal Circuit quoted its opinion
in Grant v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
A persuasive medical theory is demonstrated by “proof of a logical
sequence of cause of and effect showing that the vaccination was
the reason for the injury [,]” the logical sequence being supported
by a “reputable medical or scientific explanation[,]” i.e., “evidence
in the form of scientific studies or expert medical testimony[.]”
418 F.3d at 1278.
Without more, “evidence showing an absence of other causes does not meet petitioners’
affirmative duty to show actual or legal causation.” Grant, 956 F.2d at 1149. Mere temporal
association is not sufficient to prove causation in fact. Id. at 1148.
Petitioner must show not only that but for trivalent influenza vaccination, and not H N
1 1
influenza vaccination, she would not have had whatever condition she has, but also that trivalent
influenza vaccination was a substantial factor in causing whatever condition she has. Shyface v.
Sec’y of HHS 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The Vaccine Act does not permit the undersigned to rule for petitioner based on her
claims alone, “unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
13(a)(1). Petitioner has moved to dismiss rather than continue in a forum in which it appears she
may not obtain compensation.
The Vaccine Act permits petitioners to pursue a civil action once judgment has entered
on a decision by filing an election to sue civilly under § 300aa-21(a)(1). In order to obtain a
judgment in this case, petitioner has moved to dismiss. The undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s
motion and DISMISSES this case.
CONCLUSION
This petition is DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to
2

Case 1:12-vv-00825-UNJ Document 72 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 3
RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman
Laura D. Millman
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(b), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either jointly or
separately, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
3