VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00277
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00277
Petitioner: Morgan Davis
Filed: 2017-02-27
Decided: 2017-02-27
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2012-04-10
Condition: intracranial pressure (pseudo-tumor cerebri), papilledema, and headaches
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Morgan Davis, initially a minor represented by her mother, Raquel Davis, filed a petition on March 18, 2015, alleging that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil), hepatitis A vaccine, and Menactra vaccine administered on April 10, 2012, caused her to develop intracranial pressure (pseudo-tumor cerebri), papilledema, and headaches. The petition was later amended to reflect that Morgan had reached the age of majority. Petitioner's initial attorney attempted to find an expert witness to support the claim for 15 months but was unsuccessful, leading to the withdrawal of counsel on February 5, 2016. Petitioner was unable to obtain new counsel, and attorney William Rossbach also refused to represent her after failing to find an expert. During a telephonic status conference on October 19, 2016, with petitioner, her mother, and respondent's counsel, petitioner's mother stated that she could not find a doctor to support the allegations, noting that her current neurologist and original diagnosing physician, Dr. Greg MacDonald, would not provide supporting statements. The court issued an Order to Show Cause on February 7, 2017, directing petitioner to file an expert report or face dismissal. On February 23, 2017, petitioner's mother submitted a letter requesting dismissal without prejudice, stating that no physician could connect her daughter's condition to the vaccines. Although the mother's letter claimed the diagnosing physician had linked the vaccines to the condition, medical records and prior statements contradicted this. The Special Master granted the motion to dismiss. The public decision does not describe the specific clinical course or expert testimony presented, as the case was dismissed due to the lack of supporting medical records or expert opinion. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Morgan Davis alleged that the HPV (Gardasil), hepatitis A, and Menactra vaccines administered on April 10, 2012, caused intracranial pressure (pseudo-tumor cerebri), papilledema, and headaches. The public decision does not describe a specific medical theory connecting the vaccines to the alleged injuries, nor does it detail a logical sequence of cause and effect or a proximate temporal relationship supported by expert testimony or scientific studies. Petitioner's counsel was unsuccessful in finding an expert witness to support the claim. Petitioner's mother stated that no physician could connect the condition to the vaccines. Medical records did not substantiate the allegations, and petitioner's primary care physician, Dr. Muzquiz, did not believe the vaccinations caused the headaches. The case was dismissed with prejudice by Special Master Laura D. Millman on February 27, 2017, due to the lack of evidence and expert support for the causation claim. Petitioner was represented by Raquel Davis (pro se after counsel withdrew), and respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock. The theory of causation was deemed "Off-Table" in the provided database fields, and the dismissal was based on the failure to meet the burden of proof for causation in fact as outlined in Althen v. Sec'y of HHS.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00277-1
Date issued/filed: 2017-03-27
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/27/2017) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Laura D. Millman. (kh) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 6
REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION
27 MAR 2017
OSM
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
3Jn tbe mtntteb <!Court of jfe beral <!Claims
~tates
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS FILED
No. 15-277V
Filed: February 27, 2017
FEB 2 7 2017
Not to be Published
OSM
************************************* U.S. COURT OF
FalaW. CIAlll8
MORGAN DAV IS, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Human papiUomavirus ("HPV")
v. * vaccine ("Gardasil"); Hepatitis A
* vaccine; Menactra vaccine; pseudo
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * tumor cerebri; no expert in support;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * motion to dismiss granted.
*
Respondent. *
*
*************************************
Raquel Davis, Ronan, MT, for petitioner prose.
Alexis B. Babcock, Washington, DC, for respondent.
MILLMAN, Special Master
DECISION1
On March 18, 2015, petitioner filed a petition through her mother Raquel because, at that
time, petitioner was a minor. On January 14, 2016, the undersigned issued an order changing the
caption to reflect that petitioner had reached her majority. Petitioner alleges under the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), that human papillomavirus
("HPV") vaccine ("Gardasil"), hepatitis A vaccine, and Menactra administered on April 10, 2012
caused her intracranial pressure (pseudo-tumor cerebri), papilledema, and headaches.
On February 4, 2016, petitioner's counsel moved to withdraw as attorney, having
unsuccessfully searched for an expert to support petitioner's allegations for 15 months. On
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this
case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal
Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Govemment Act of2002, 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, petitioner has 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 banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 6
February 5, 2016, the undersigned granted the motion to withdraw. Petitioner's mother
represented petitioner under CFC Rule 83.l(a)(3). Petitioner was unable to obtain the services of
another attorney. Attorney William Rossbach did attempt to find an expert to support
petitioner's allegations, but, when he could not find one, he refused to represent petitioner.
On October 19, 2016, the undersigned held a telephonic status conference with petitioner,
her mother, and respondent's counsel during which petitioner's mother said she could not get a
doctor to support petitioner's allegations. Petitioner saw a neurologist every six weeks. She
spoke to her current neurologist who would not give her a letter supporting her allegations.
Petitioner and her mother contacted petitioner's original doctor and he refused to support
petitioner's case. Petitioner's mother wanted time to decide whether or not to dismiss.
On February 7, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why this case
should not be dismissed by February 24, 2017. The undersigned suggested petitioner make a
motion to dismiss this case. In the alternative, petitioner could file an expert report supporting
her allegations.
On February 23, 2017, petitioner e-mailed an undated letter moving for dismissal. By
separate filing, the undersigned filed petitioner's mother's letter by the undersigned's leave.
Petitioner's mother's letter states in pertinent part:
Ms. Davis and her family have carefully considered the
information from both [her prior attorney] and Mr. Ross back [sic]
that they were unable to find any physician that will state Ms.
Davis' condition is connected to the receiving of the above
mentioned vaccinations [human papillomavirus, hepatitis A, and
Menactra] .
. . . At this time Ms. Davis[] is requesting the United States Court
of Federal Claims to dismiss her case without prejudice. She is
requesting this action to protect her interest in the event evidence
of the association between her condition (pseudo-tumor cerebri,
papilledema and on-going headaches) and the vaccines is ever
found.
Unnumbered second page of e-mailed letter to the undersigned's law clerk.
Although petitioner's mother states in the same letter e-mailed February 23, 2017 that, in
April 2012, petitioner's original diagnosing physician, Dr. Greg MacDonald, told her that her
vaccinations caused her pseudo-tumor cerebri, the medical records do not support petitioner's
mother's statement. Moreover, during the status conference held on October 19, 2016,
petitioner's mother stated that petitioner's original doctor did not support petitioner's case.
Petitioner' motion to dismiss her case is hereby GRANTED.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 6
FACTS
Prevaccination Records
On April 11, 2010 (two years before the vaccinations at issue), petitioner saw Dr. Lee
Anna Muzquiz, Tribal Health & Human Services, complaining of intermittent headaches. She
noted that they were related to her menstrual cycle. The sides of her head in which the
headaches occurred were different each time. She sometimes had photophobia. Her mother had
a similar history. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 89.
Postvaccination Records
On April I 0, 2012, petitioner received HPV, hepatitis A, and Menactra vaccines. Med.
recs. Ex. I, at I.
On April 16, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. Muzquiz, complaining of a headache for one week
that began on April 11, 2012. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 3. She had sharp pain on the side of her head,
which came and went, and travelled from side to side. On the day of the visit, she felt dizzy and
thought she would lose her balance four times. Noise, light, and smells exacerbated her
symptoms. Her throat felt a little sore and she thought she might have an earache. Her stomach
was not feeling very good. Petitioner was 5'3" and weighed 181 pounds. Her BMI was 30.35.
On physical examination, her tympanic membranes were clear, and her pharynx did not have
erythema. Dr. Muzquiz diagnosed petitioner with headache, and allergic rhinitis not otherwise
specified. Petitioner had seasonal allergies. Id.
Also on April 16, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. Marcus Simonich, an optometrist with Ronan
Optical. Med. recs. Ex. 4, at 14. Petitioner said she had migraines since April 11, 2012 mostly
every day. Reading, sound, and light seemed to trigger them. Petitioner received HPV, hepatitis
A, and Menactra vaccines on April 10, 2012. Petitioner's primary care physician Dr. Muzquiz
did not think petitioner's vaccinations caused her headaches. Petitioner obtained new glasses
two weeks prior to her vaccinations. Her visual acuity was good with her new prescription. She
said she did not have headaches until the prior week. Id. Dr. Simonic h diagnosed petitioner with
headache, myopia, papilledema which was mild versus pseudo-papilledema, and referred her to a
neurologist. Id. at 19.
On April 17, 2012, Dr. Simonich, the optometrist, telephoned petitioner's primary care
physician Dr. Muzquiz and said he noted some optic edema and recommended petitioner see a
neurologist to rule out pseudo-tumor cerebri. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 5.
On April 24, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. Gregory P. MacDonald, a pediatric neurologist,
complaining of headaches and papilledema. Med. recs. Ex. 5, at 3. Her headaches began April
11, 2012, the day after she received hepatitis A, meningitis, and Gardasil vaccinations. She had
new glasses the week before that. Loud noises triggered her headaches. They were associated
3

Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 6
with photophobia, sonophobia, dysequilibrium, increased sleeping, decreased appetite without
weight loss, and increased fatigue. She did not have nausea. She missed school three days in the
prior two weeks. She had seasonal allergic rhinitis. Id. at 4. Dr. MacDonald diagnosed
petitioner with pseudo-tumor cerebri. Id. at 5.
On April 27, 2012, petitioner had a brain MRI done. Id. at 39. There were no masses or
hydrocephalus. She did not have dural sinus thrombosis. Id.
On May 22, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald, who noted that her brain MRI and
MRV were normal. She did not have hydrocephalus, tumor, or Chiari malformation. Id. at 7.
On physical examination, her fundi showed clear improvement. Her papilledema had improved
but not resolved. Dr. MacDonald again diagnosed pseudo-tumor cerebri. Id. at 8.
On July 12, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald. Id. at 10. Petitioner's daily headaches
had subsided. She had increased appetite and weight gain. Both her parents were obese. Id. On
physical examination, petitioner's fundi showed normal optic nerves with sharp disc margins and
spontaneous venous pulses ("SVPs"). Id. at 11. Dr. MacDonald diagnosed petitioner with
pseudo-tumor cerebi. He noted petitioner's daily headaches and papilledema had resolved with
Diamox. Id.
On August 28, 2012, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald. Id. at 13. Petitioner had
intermittent pulsatile headaches more consistent with migraine. Id.
On March 2, 2013, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald. Id. at 71. He wrote that her pseudo
tumor cerebri was in remission. When she had a lumbar puncture done on January 18, 2013, she
had a normal opening pressure. The funduscopic eye examination done that day was normal.
Petitioner had intermittent headaches once every three weeks without definite triggers. He
diagnosed petitioner with migraines and advised her to maintain hydration. Id.
On April 16, 2013, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald, who stated her pseudo-tumor cerebri
was in remission with normal opening pressure on lumbar puncture. Med. recs. Ex. 3, at 45. On
physical examination, she had a normal funduscopic exam. Id. He states that anxiety and mental
stress seemed to trigger her headaches. She stayed up late and wanted to sleep in the morning.
She had a normal examination. Id. at 46.
On October 17, 2013, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald. Her pseudo-tumor cerebri had
returned, perhaps due to a recent urinary tract infection and the antibiotic she took to treat it.
Med. recs. Ex. 5, at 75. Petitioner's BMI was then almost 35 and presented serious health risks
for her in addition to likely exacerbating her pseudo-tumor cerebri. Her parents were also very
obese. Id. at 76. On physical examination, petitioner's fundi showed absent SVPs and grade 1
papilledema bilaterally. Id. at 78.
On December 28, 2013, petitioner saw Dr. Bruce Mikesell, complaining of headaches for
the past two weeks. Med. recs. Ex. 3, at 210. She was previously diagnosed with pseudo-tumor
4

Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 5 of 6
cerebri, but Dr. Mikesell wrote that her documented workup did not support this diagnosis. Id.
On April 17, 2014, petitioner saw Dr. MacDonald. Med. recs. Ex. 5, at 80. She had
migraine not otherwise specified with intractable migraine, pseudo-tumor cerebi, and obesity.
On physical examination, her funduscopic eye examination looked normal. Her recent lumbar
puncture had an opening pressure within normal. When 5.5 mL were removed to yield a closing
pressure of 19.8 cm of water, petitioner said she felt instantly better and was headache-free for
four days. Id. at 81.
On September 26, 2014, petitioner saw Dr. Marcus Wheeler, who notes: "I suspect given
the chronic nature of her symptoms and complaints of discomfort out of proportion to physical
manifestations bf discomfort that there is likely a significant psychological component to her
symptoms which will need to be addressed in the future." Med. recs. Ex. 19, at 27.
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 petitioner's
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 her human papillomavirus, hepatitis A, and
Menactra vaccinations, she would not have pseudo-tumor cerebri, papilledema, and headaches,
but also that these vaccinations were a substantial factor in causing pseudo-tumor cerebri,
papilledema, and headaches. Shyface v. Sec'y of HHS, 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The Vaccine Act,§ 300aa-13(a)(l), prohibits the undersigned from ruling for petitioner
based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. None of
petitioner's medical records supports her allegations. In fact, petitioner's personal care physician
Dr. Muzquiz informed Dr. Simonich, petitioner's optometrist, that she did not think petitioner's
5

Case 1:15-vv-00277-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/27/17 Page 6 of 6
vaccinations caused her headaches. Petitioner has not filed a medical expert report in support of
her allegations even though her first attorney spent over a year and a second attorney Mr.
Rossbach spent months looking for an expert.
The undersigned GRANTS petitioner's motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
This petition is DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to
RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~£2-~
Dated: February 27, 2017
Laura D. Millman
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule I !(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
6