VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00186
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00186
Petitioner: D.N.T.
Filed: 2014-10-29
Decided: 2015-04-10
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2011-03-04
Condition: adverse reaction to a human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 5970

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 5, 2014, Jana Wilkes filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, D.N.T., alleging an adverse reaction to a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine administered on March 4, 2011. The petition was filed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Petitioner's counsel was Danielle Anne Strait of Maglio Christopher and Toale, P.A. Respondent's counsel was Ann Donohue Martin of the United States Department of Justice. Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman presided over the case. On October 29, 2014, the petitioner filed a motion for a dismissal decision, stating that an investigation of the evidence demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The public decision does not describe the specific injury alleged or any symptoms, medical records, or treatments. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence of causation. The medical records were deemed insufficient to establish entitlement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for insufficient proof on October 29, 2014. Subsequently, on March 19, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs. The respondent did not object to the requested amount. The Special Master found that the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis, awarding $5,970.22 in attorneys' fees and costs on April 10, 2015. This award was made payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel, Danielle A. Strait.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jana Wilkes, on behalf of minor D.N.T., alleged an adverse reaction to a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine received on March 4, 2011. The petition was filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner's counsel was Danielle Anne Strait, and respondent's counsel was Ann Donohue Martin. Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman presided. On October 29, 2014, the petitioner moved for dismissal, acknowledging an inability to prove entitlement due to insufficient evidence. The public decision does not specify the alleged injury or provide details on the mechanism of injury. The Special Master found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence of causation. Medical records were deemed insufficient to establish entitlement. The petition was dismissed for insufficient proof. On April 10, 2015, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman awarded $5,970.22 in attorneys' fees and costs, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis. The award was payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00186-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-11-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/29/2014) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (dlb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00186-UNJ Document 18 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-186V
Filed: October 29, 2014
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
JANA WILKES, on behalf of *
D.N.T., a minor child, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
* Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal
v. * Decision; Insufficient Proof of
* Causation; Vaccine Act Entitlement;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine; Unspecified Injury.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle Anne Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, P.A., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Ann Donohue Martin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On March 5, 2014, Jana Wilkes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on behalf
of her minor child, D.N.T., under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that D.N.T. suffered from an
adverse reaction to a human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine she received on March 4, 2011.
Petition (“Pet”) at 1-2. The undersigned now finds that the information in the record does not
show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On October 29, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Dismissal Decision (“Motion”). In
her Motion, Petitioner indicates that “[a]n investigation of the evidence of her case demonstrated
to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the standards of
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
the undersigned intends 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 and note (2006)). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other
information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule
requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review,
the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision,
such material will be deleted from public access.

Case 1:14-vv-00186-UNJ Document 18 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 2
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Motion at 1. Petitioner further states that
she understands that a dismissal of her petition will result in a judgment against her regarding
D.N.T.’s injury, and that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Program. Id.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
D.N.T. 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 §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the
record did not uncover any evidence that D.N.T. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record
does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that her
injuries were caused by a vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or
by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are
insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, and no expert reports have been filed.
Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition. Thus, this case is
dismissed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, the Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00186-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-04-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/20/2015) regarding 25 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00186-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-186
Filed: March 20, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JANA WILKES, on behalf of D.N.T., a minor * UNPUBLISHED
child, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable Amount
* Requested to which Respondent Does Not
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Object.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle A. Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On March 5, 2014, Jana Wilkes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of her child, D.N.T.,
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006).
Petitioner alleged that her child suffered from an adverse reaction to the Cervarix vaccination received on
March 4, 2011. Petition (“Pet”) at 1. On October 29, 2014, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing
the case for insufficient proof.
On March 19, 2015, Respondent filed a Revised Stipulation of Facts Concerning Final Attorneys’
Fees and Costs3. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $5,970.22 in
attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order Number 9, Petitioner’s counsel filed a
1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished 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)). As provided by Vaccine Rule
18(b), each party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by
that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential,
or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” In the absence of such motion, the entire decision will be available to
the public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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-1 to -34 (2006) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual
sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
3 Respondent initially filed a Stipulation for Fees on March 13, 2015. Stipulation, ECF No. 22.
However, there was a discrepancy, which was corrected following a telephonic Status Conference on
March 19, 2015. A Revised Stipulation for Fees was filed on March 19, 2015. Stipulation, ECF No. 24.
1

Case 1:14-vv-00186-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2
Declaration regarding litigation fees and costs. Declaration, ECF No. 21. In this Declaration, she stated
that Petitioner has not responded to several requests to obtain a signed statement regarding General Order
Number 9 and to the best of Petitioner’s counsel’s knowledge, Petitioner did not incur any costs. Id.
Furthermore, in the Stipulation, Petitioner’s counsel represents that she will reimburse Petitioner for any
costs that Petitioner incurred that are compensable under the Vaccine Act, if necessary.
The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $5,970.22, in the form of a check made
payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Danielle A. Strait.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court
SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2