VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01227
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01227
Petitioner: M.V.
Filed: 2016-01-06
Decided: 2016-01-29
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 2012-03-16
Condition: neurological symptoms, including speech delay and developmental delay
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Keith Varela filed a petition on January 6, 2016, on behalf of his minor child, M.V., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that "over-vaccination" on March 16, 2012, caused M.V. to develop neurological symptoms, including speech delay and developmental delay. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, disputed compensation. Following the filing of medical records and the respondent's report disputing compensation, the Special Master ordered the petitioner to file an expert report to support his claim. The petitioner missed several deadlines for filing this expert report, despite having over six months to do so, and ultimately did not file the report. On January 6, 2016, the petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing his petition, stating he was unlikely to succeed in meeting his burden of proof due to newly discovered evidence and that he intended to pursue civil action later. The respondent did not object to the motion. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" corresponding to a vaccination or that a vaccine actually caused the injury and that it lasted more than six months. The Special Master found no evidence in the record of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record did not contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury could have been caused by the vaccinations or that it lasted more than six months. The Special Master also noted that a petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician, and that the petitioner had not offered an expert opinion supporting his claim. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Keith Varela, on behalf of minor M.V., alleged that "over-vaccination" on March 16, 2012, caused neurological symptoms including speech and developmental delay. The petition was filed on January 6, 2016. The respondent disputed compensation. The Special Master ordered an expert report, which Petitioner failed to file despite multiple deadlines. Petitioner then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss, stating he was unlikely to meet his burden of proof due to newly discovered evidence and intending to pursue civil action. The Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof, finding no evidence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient persuasive evidence that the vaccinations actually caused the alleged injury or that it lasted more than six months. The petition lacked the required medical records or competent physician's opinion to support the claim. No specific medical experts were named in the public decision, and the mechanism of injury was not detailed. The case was dismissed without an award. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on January 29, 2016. Attorneys for Petitioner were Andrew D. Downing and for Respondent were Ryan Pyles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01227-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-01-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/6/2016) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01227-UNJ Document 30 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1227V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KEITH VARELA, on behalf of his *
minor child, M.V., * Filed: January 6, 2016
*
Petitioner, *
v. * Vaccine Act Entitlement;
* Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ryan Pyles, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On December 22, 2014, Keith Varela filed a petition on behalf of his minor child M.V.,
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 The Petition alleges that the “over-vaccination” that M.V. experienced on March 16,
2012, caused him to develop neurological symptoms, including speech delay and developmental
delay. See Pet. at 1 (ECF No. 1). After Petitioner filed his medical records and Respondent filed
her 4(c) Report disputing compensation, I ordered Petitioner to file an expert report supporting his
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it 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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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 whole decision will be available to the public.
Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:14-vv-01227-UNJ Document 30 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2
claim. Petitioner missed several deadlines for his expert report, despite having over six months to
do so, and ultimately did not file a report.
On January 6, 2016, Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion for a Decision Dismissing His
Petition. Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 25). In it, Petitioner states that he is unlikely to succeed in
meeting his burden of proof, particularly due to newly discovered evidence. Id. at 1. Petitioner also
stated his understanding that the requested decision will end all of his rights in the Vaccine
Program. Id. at 2. Mr. Varela intends to pursue civil action in the future, but in an effort to not
waste judicial resources, requests dismissal of his current claim. Id. at 1-2. Respondent does not
object.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or (2) that he 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 Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain
sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury that Petitioner experienced could
have been caused by the vaccinations received, or that it lasted more than six months (see
§ 11(c)(1)(D)(i)).
In addition, 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. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient
evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof, and he has not offered an expert
opinion supporting his claim. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed.
Section 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