E.D.D. v. HHS - MMR, seizure disorder (2020)

Filed 2015-07-06Decided 2020-11-02Vaccine MMR
dismissed

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

On July 6, 2015, Eve Dineen and Daniel Dineen, as legal representatives of a minor child, E.D.D., filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that E.D.D. developed a seizure disorder as a result of receiving measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP), and Hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccinations on July 24, 2012.

The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, any diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received.

The public decision also does not name the petitioner's counsel or the respondent's counsel. On October 30, 2020, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their own petition, understanding that this would result in a judgment against them and end their rights in the Vaccine Program.

They stated their intention to preserve their right to file a civil action in the future. The Special Master granted the motion to dismiss for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The respondent reserved the right to question the good faith and reasonable basis of the claim regarding fees and costs but otherwise did not oppose the motion. The public decision does not detail the Special Master's reasoning beyond granting the motion for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation

Petitioners alleged that minor child E.D.D. developed a seizure disorder as a result of receiving MMR, DTaP, and Hep B vaccinations on July 24, 2012. The public decision states that the record did not contain persuasive evidence that E.D.D. suffered a Table Injury or that the vaccines caused the seizure disorder. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their petition for insufficient proof, which was granted by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen on November 2, 2020. The respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not oppose the motion to dismiss, reserving the right to question fees and costs. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation, name any experts, or provide a breakdown of any award, as the case was dismissed.

Source PDFs 4 total · 1 downloaded