VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01176
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01176
Petitioner: SCGJ
Filed: 2015-10-09
Decided: 2020-04-30
Vaccine: hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2012-08-31
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jeffrey Jarvis and Jessica Tomei, on behalf of their minor daughter SCGJ, filed a petition on October 9, 2015, alleging that SCGJ suffered transverse myelitis as a result of receiving the hepatitis A and/or influenza vaccines on August 31, 2012. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The public decision does not describe the specific onset or symptoms of the alleged injury, nor does it detail any medical records, tests, or treatments. On April 8, 2020, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their own petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science supporting their case had demonstrated they would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. They acknowledged that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program. Petitioners also understood that a dismissal would result in judgment against them, ending all their rights in the Vaccine Program, and that their attorney could apply for fees and costs. The respondent reserved the right to question the good faith and reasonable basis of the claim and to oppose any application for fees and costs. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen granted the petitioners' motion for dismissal. The decision stated that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of the injury. The latter requires a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship, as outlined in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. The Special Master noted that the medical records were insufficient to establish entitlement and that petitioners' experts had not presented opinions supporting vaccine causation under the Althen standard. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered against the petitioners. The public decision does not specify any compensation awarded, as the case was dismissed before an award could be made. The attorneys involved were Michael A. Firestone for the petitioner and Ronalda E. Kosh for the respondent. The decision was filed on April 30, 2020.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that the hepatitis A and/or influenza vaccines administered on August 31, 2012, caused transverse myelitis in minor SCGJ. The public decision does not specify the medical theory, logical sequence of cause and effect, or proximate temporal relationship presented by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their petition, stating that an investigation demonstrated they would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation, specifically noting that medical records were insufficient and their experts did not support a finding of vaccine causation under the Althen standard. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen granted the motion to dismiss for insufficient proof. The case was dismissed on April 30, 2020, with judgment entered against the petitioners. No award was made. Attorneys for petitioner were Michael A. Firestone and for respondent Ronalda E. Kosh.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01176-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-04-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/8/2020) regarding 77 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. (Main Document 79 replaced on 7/10/2020 to attach corrected document) (ypb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01176-UNJ Document 79 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Public Decision Filed: April 30, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JEFFREY JARVIS and JESSICA *
TOMEI, on behalf of their minor * UNPUBLISHED
daughter SCGJ, *
* No. 15-1176V
Petitioners, *
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Motion for Dismissal Decision;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Hepatitis A; Influenza (“flu”);
* Transverse Myelitis; Insufficient
* Proof.
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael A. Firestone, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Assocs., LLP, San Mateo, CA, for petitioner.
Ronalda E. Kosh, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION1
On October 9, 2015, Jeffrey Jarvis and Jessica Tomei (“petitioners”), on behalf of their
minor daughter, S.C.G.J., filed a petitioner in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program.2 Petitioners allege that as a result of S.C.G.J. receiving the hepatitis A vaccine and/or
the influenza vaccine on August 31, 2012, she suffered transverse myelitis. The information in
the record, does not establish entitlement to compensation.
On April 8, 2020, petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition.
Petitioners’ Motion (“Pet. Mot.”) (ECF No. 76). Petitioners stated an investigation of the facts
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012)
(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
300aa.

Case 1:15-vv-01176-UNJ Document 79 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2
and science supporting their case has demonstrated that they will be unable to prove that S.C.G.J.
is entitled to compensation. Pet. Mot. at ¶1. In these circumstances, to proceed further would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent and the Vaccine
Program. Id. at ¶ 2. Additionally, petitioners understand that a decision dismissing their petition
will result in judgment against them and they have been advised by counsel that a judgment will
end all of their rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner understands that her attorney
may apply for fees and costs once her case is dismissed and judgment is entered against her. Id.
at ¶ 4. Respondent expressly reserves the right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), to question
the good faith and reasonable basis of the claim and to oppose, if appropriate, the application for
fees and costs. Id.
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving
either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). To satisfy their burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner
must show 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 Health & Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2005).
Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may not award compensation
based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petitioner must support the claim with either
medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the
medical records are insufficient to establish entitlement and petitioners’ experts have not
presented opinions that support a finding of vaccine causation under Althen.
Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient
proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).
2