VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00717
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00717
Petitioner: E.F.
Filed: 2014-08-08
Decided: 2016-01-05
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2012-11-06
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 18000

AI-assisted case summary:
On August 8, 2014, Robyn Chang, as parent and next friend of E.F., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The petition alleged that E.F. developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving the second dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on November 6, 2012. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report on December 18, 2014, arguing that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim and that compensation should be denied. On September 14, 2015, the petitioner filed a motion for a dismissal decision, stating she did not intend to submit further evidence. Respondent's counsel indicated they would not file a response to this motion. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey noted that to receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" (an injury listed in the Vaccine Injury Table) or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did the petitioner allege one. Furthermore, the record lacked a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence establishing that E.F.'s injuries were caused by the vaccination. The public decision does not describe the onset or specific symptoms of E.F.'s alleged GBS, nor does it detail any medical records, tests, or treatments. Because the medical records were insufficient and no expert opinion was offered, Chief Special Master Dorsey dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on September 18, 2015. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. On December 2, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Respondent did not object to a total award of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $18,000.00. Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses. Special Master Roth granted the motion for approval and payment of attorneys' fees and costs on January 5, 2016, awarding $18,000.00, payable by check jointly to the petitioner and Richard Gage, E.F.'s counsel. Richard Gage of Richard Gage & Associates represented the petitioner, and Darryl Wishard of the United States Department of Justice represented the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Robyn Chang, on behalf of minor E.F., alleged that E.F. developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on November 6, 2012. The respondent argued insufficient evidence. Petitioner subsequently moved for dismissal, stating no further evidence would be filed. The public decision does not specify the mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. To be compensated, petitioner needed to prove either a Table Injury or actual causation. The record lacked evidence of a Table Injury, and no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence was presented to establish that the HPV vaccine actually caused E.F.'s GBS. The medical records were deemed insufficient. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on September 18, 2015. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth later awarded $18,000.00 for attorneys' fees and costs based on a stipulation, with no objection from the respondent, on January 5, 2016. Petitioner counsel was Richard Gage; respondent counsel was Darryl Wishard.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00717-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/18/2015) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00717-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
(Filed: September 18, 2015)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ROBYN CHANG, Parent and Next * No. 14-717V
Friend of E.F., a Minor, *
*
Petitioner, * Chief Special Master Dorsey
*
v. *
* Dismissal; Human Papillomavirus vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Gardasil; Guillain-Barré Syndrome;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Insufficient Proof
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Gage, Richard Gage & Associates, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Petitioner.
Darryl Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On August 8, 2014, Robyn Chang (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation as parent
and next friend of E.F., a minor, under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§
300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that after receiving the second dose of
the human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine on November 6, 2012, E.F. developed Guillain-Barré
Syndrome (“GBS”). See Petition at 1.
Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) Report on December 18, 2014, arguing that this case is
not appropriate for compensation. Respondent stated that petitioner failed to provide
preponderant evidence in support of the petition for compensation and that compensation under
the Vaccine Act for petitioner’s injuries must therefore be denied.
On September 14, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for a dismissal decision. In the motion,
petitioner states that she “does not intend to file any further evidence in this case.” Motion for
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-00717-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2
Decision at 1. Respondent’s counsel communicated via an email to the undersigned’s staff
attorney that respondent does not intend to file a response to petitioner’s motion.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, petitioner must prove either 1) that E.F.
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to one of his vaccinations, or 2) that E.F 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 E.F suffered a “Table Injury”, nor does petitioner allege that E.F. suffered a
Table injury. Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other
persuasive evidence indicating that E.F.’s injuries were caused by a vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on
the petitioner’s claims. 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, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. Petitioner, however, has not offered a medical expert opinion.
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/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00717-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-01-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/02/2015) regarding 46 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (mbl) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00717-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
(Filed: December 2, 2015)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ROBYN CHANG, Parent and Next * No. 14-717V
Friend of E.F., a Minor, *
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Roth
*
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Reasonable Amount Requested to
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * which Respondent does Not Object
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Gage, Richard Gage & Associates, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Petitioner.
Darryl Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On September 18, 2015, the Chief Special Master entered a decision dismissing this case
for insufficient proof. This case was transferred to the undersigned on October 19, 2015. On
December 2, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
According to the stipulation, respondent does not object to a total award of attorneys’ fees and
costs in the amount of $18,000.00. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner incurred no
out-of-pocket litigation expenses.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. §
300 aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and respondent’s counsel’s
lack of objection to petitioner’s counsel’s fee request, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s
motion for approval and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,
the undersigned intends to post this decision 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, 116 Stat. 2899,
2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 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 entire decision will be available to the
public. Id.
1

Case 1:14-vv-00717-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, an award should be made as follows:
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and Richard Gage in the
amount of $18,000.00.
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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
2 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