VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00516
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00516
Petitioner: Beth Britt
Filed: 2015-05-19
Decided: 2016-07-21
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2012-08-14
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Beth Britt filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on May 19, 2015, alleging that a Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (TDaP) vaccine administered on August 14, 2012, caused her to develop transverse myelitis. Petitioner Britt continued to suffer from residual effects of the condition but stated she did not intend to file a medical expert opinion regarding vaccine causation. On June 22, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision on the record, requesting that the Special Master issue a final decision based on the existing record. To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must prove either that they suffered a "Table Injury" corresponding to the vaccination or that the vaccine actually caused their injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury. Furthermore, the record did not include a medical expert's opinion or any other persuasive evidence establishing that the vaccine caused Petitioner's injuries. The Special Master noted that under the Vaccine Act, compensation cannot be awarded based solely on the petitioner's claims; the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. As the medical records were insufficient to establish entitlement and no supporting medical opinion was offered, the petition was denied for insufficient proof and dismissed. The decision was issued by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman on July 21, 2016. Petitioner's counsel was Diana Stadelnikas Sedar of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA. Respondent's counsel was Alexis Babcock of the United States Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Beth Britt alleged that a TDaP vaccine administered on August 14, 2012, caused her to develop transverse myelitis. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or provide details regarding the onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments. Petitioner did not intend to file a medical expert opinion regarding vaccine causation and did not present evidence of a "Table Injury." The Special Master found that the record lacked sufficient medical records or a competent physician's opinion to establish that the vaccine actually caused Petitioner's injury. Consequently, the petition was denied for insufficient proof. Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman issued the decision on July 21, 2016. Petitioner was represented by Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, and Respondent was represented by Alexis Babcock.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00516-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-07-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/29/2016) regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (mb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00516-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-516V
Filed: June 29, 2016
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
BETH BRITT, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for Decision;
* Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Pertussis (“TDaP”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Transverse Myelitis (“TM”).
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Alexis Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On May 19, 2015 Beth Britt (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleged that the administration of a Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis
(“TDaP”) vaccine on August 14, 2012 caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis. The
undersigned now finds that the information in the record does not show entitlement to an award
under the Program.
On June 22, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision on the Record. According to
the motion, Petitioner continues to suffer from residual sequelae of transverse myelitis, but does
not intend to file a medical expert opinion regarding vaccine causation. Petitioner requests that
the undersigned issue a final decision on the existing record.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either 1) that she
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 (2012)). 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 1:15-vv-00516-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to her vaccination, 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 she 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, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such 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/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2