B.O. v. HHS - MMR, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) (2014)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Crystal La Veck and Mark Osterhoudt, parents of B.O., a minor, filed a petition on July 10, 2014, on behalf of their child seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They alleged that B.O. suffered idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) as a result of receiving the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on June 14, 2011.
The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that the claim was compensable. In its Rule 4(c) Report, the respondent stated that the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the facts and concluded that B.O.'s alleged injury was consistent with ITP as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table and that DVIC did not identify any other causes for B.O.'s ITP.
The respondent also acknowledged that the petitioners met all other legal requirements for compensation. Special Master Brian H.
Corcoran, based on the respondent's concession and a review of the record, found that B.O. is entitled to compensation for an injury caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. A separate order for damages was to be issued.
The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, or any expert testimony.
Theory of causation
Petitioners alleged that minor B.O. suffered idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) as a result of receiving the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on June 14, 2011. The respondent conceded the claim was compensable, stating that B.O.'s alleged injury was consistent with ITP as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)) and that no other causes were identified by the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC). Petitioners met all other legal prerequisites for compensation. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement based on the respondent's concession and a review of the record, concluding the injury was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. A separate damages order was to be issued. The public text does not name specific counsel, detail the mechanism of injury, or identify any experts.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00340