VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00623
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00623
Petitioner: Samuel V. Darroch
Filed: 2015-06-18
Decided: 2016-12-14
Vaccine: Tetanus
Vaccination date: 
Condition: seizures
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Samuel V. Darroch filed a petition on June 18, 2015, alleging that he suffered seizures as a result of receiving a Tetanus vaccination. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Petitioner's counsel was William E. Cochran, Jr. of Black McLaren, et al., PC, and respondent's counsel was Althea W. Davis of the United States Department of Justice. The case was filed as an "off-Table" claim, meaning the injury was not presumed to be vaccine-related under the Vaccine Injury Table. The public decision does not describe the specific date of vaccination, the petitioner's age at vaccination, or the onset of symptoms. On November 1, 2016, Mr. Darroch moved for a decision dismissing his petition, stating that he was unable to secure evidence to prove entitlement to compensation. He acknowledged that such a dismissal would end all his rights in the Vaccine Program but stated his intention to protect his rights to file a civil action. The respondent did not oppose the motion. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccination. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury," nor did the petitioner allege one. Furthermore, the record lacked persuasive evidence that the alleged seizures were caused by the Tetanus vaccine. The Special Master also stated that under the Vaccine Act, a petition cannot be based solely on the petitioner's claims; it must be supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion. The public decision does not describe any medical records or physician's opinions submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, Special Master Gowen found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation due to insufficient proof, and the petition was dismissed. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly. The decision was issued on December 14, 2016.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Samuel V. Darroch alleged seizures following a Tetanus vaccination. The case was litigated as an off-Table claim. Petitioner was unable to secure evidence to prove entitlement to compensation, including evidence of a "Table Injury" or that the Tetanus vaccine actually caused the seizures. The public decision does not describe the specific vaccination date, petitioner's age, onset of symptoms, medical records, or a competent physician's opinion supporting the claim. Petitioner moved for dismissal due to insufficient proof. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on December 14, 2016. Petitioner's counsel was William E. Cochran, Jr.; respondent's counsel was Althea W. Davis.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00623-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-12-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/03/2016) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00623-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-623V
Filed: November 3, 2016
[Not to be published]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
SAMUEL V. DARROCH, *
* Special Master Gowen
Petitioners, *
v. * Dismissal; Tetanus Vaccine;
* Seizures
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren, et al., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Althea W. Davis, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1
On June 18, 2015, Samuel Darroch (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered seizures as a result
of receiving a Tetanus vaccination. Petition at 1-2. The information in the record, however,
does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On November 1, 2016, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition, stating
that “[p]etitioner has been unable to secure evidence to prove entitlement to compensation in the
vaccine program.” Motion for a Decision Dismissing Petition, ¶ 1. Petitioner states that he
understands that a decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against him, and that
such a judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner states
that he intends to protect his rights to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 4. Respondent does not oppose
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, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner 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, I agree that the identified material fits within the
requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§
300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be
to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:15-vv-00623-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2
petitioner’s motion.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccination.
See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence
that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury,” nor does petitioner allege that he suffered a “Table
Injury.” Further, the record does not contain any persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner’s
alleged injuries were caused by the Tetanus vaccine.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award 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. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient
medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support.
Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by
the Tetanus vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
2