VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01348
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01348
Petitioner: I.O.
Filed: 2015-11-09
Decided: 2018-03-20
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2012-11-20
Condition: seizure disorder and learning delays
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 9, 2015, Jeannie Onikama filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of her minor child, I.O. The petition alleged that on November 20, 2012, I.O. received Hepatitis A, DTaP, PCV, Varicella, and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Following vaccination, I.O. allegedly experienced febrile seizures and subsequently developed a seizure disorder and learning delays. The petition was filed without supporting documentation or medical records. Petitioner Jeannie Onikama initially had legal representation from Richard Gage, but he filed a motion to withdraw on May 8, 2017. During a status conference on May 24, 2017, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen, who is named in the decision, strongly recommended that petitioner obtain new counsel, explaining the need for expert testimony and evidence to prove the claim. Petitioner was provided with a list of attorneys who accept vaccine injury claims and was ordered to file a status report or have an attorney file a motion for substitution of counsel by June 26, 2017. Petitioner did not meet this deadline or contact the court. An Order to Show Cause was issued on July 11, 2017, with a response deadline of August 9, 2017. After petitioner failed to respond, the Special Master's law clerk attempted to contact petitioner multiple times via voicemail in September 2017. On October 12, 2017, a Final Order to Show Cause was issued. Petitioner contacted the law clerk on October 18, 2017, requesting an extension, which was granted until November 22, 2017, for petitioner to file a status report or have an attorney file a motion for substitution of counsel. Petitioner was again provided with a list of attorneys and instructions. On November 17, 2017, petitioner emailed the law clerk detailing her attempts to obtain counsel and requesting another extension. The Special Master granted this extension, noting that further extensions were unlikely unless an attorney entered an appearance and filed a status report. Petitioner's deadline was extended to January 2, 2018. To date, petitioner has not filed a motion for substitution of counsel or a status report. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical tests, or treatments related to I.O.'s alleged condition. The Special Master noted that petitioner did not allege a Table injury and failed to present sufficient evidence, such as medical records or an expert report, to establish actual causation under the Althen standard. The decision states that to prove actual causation, a petitioner must present a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a medically acceptable temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. The Special Master found that the submitted medical records alone were insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation by showing vaccine causation, and no expert report was submitted. Therefore, the claim was dismissed for insufficient proof. Additionally, the Special Master dismissed the claim for failure to prosecute, citing the petitioner's repeated failure to meet deadlines or inform the court of her progress, despite multiple extensions. The dismissal was based on Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The decision was issued by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen and reissued for publication on March 20, 2018. Camille Collett from the United States Department of Justice represented the respondent. The public decision does not mention any award amount.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jeannie Onikama filed on behalf of minor I.O., alleging that Hepatitis A, DTaP, PCV, Varicella, and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines administered on November 20, 2012, caused febrile seizures, seizure disorder, and learning delays. The claim was dismissed for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute. Petitioner did not allege a Table injury. To prove actual causation, the petitioner must establish a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a medically acceptable temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury, per Althen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. The public decision states that petitioner failed to submit sufficient medical records or an expert report to establish vaccine causation. Petitioner also failed to comply with court orders and deadlines, leading to dismissal under Rule 41(b). No specific medical experts were named in the public decision. The outcome was dismissal, with no award granted. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen issued the decision on February 13, 2018, reissued for publication on March 20, 2018. Attorneys for petitioner were Jeannie Onikama (pro se) and formerly Richard Gage; respondent's counsel was Camille Collett.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01348-1
Date issued/filed: 2018-03-20
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/13/2018) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (fm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01348-UNJ Document 39 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 3
ORIGINAL
REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 20 2018
OSM
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
3Jn tbe Wniteb $>tate.5 <!Court of jfe beral <!laint.5
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS FILED
Filed: February 13, 2018
FEB 13 2018
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
JEANNIE ONIKAMA, Mother of * UNPUBLISHED U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS
I.O., a minor, *
Petitioner, * No. l 5-l 348V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Failure to Respond to Court
* Orders.
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeannie Onikama, appearing prose, for petitioner.
Camille Collett, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION'
On November 9, 2015, petitioner Jeannie Onikama filed a petition in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Program") on behalf of her minor child, I.O. Petitioner
alleged that after receiving the Hepatitis A, DtaP, PCV, Varicella, and Haemophilus influenzae
vaccines on November 20, 2012, I.O. experienced febrile seizures and continues to suffer from a
seizure disorder and learning delays. Petition at 1. For the reasons stated herein, petitioner's
claim is dismissed for insufficient proof and failure to respond to court orders.
I. Procedural History
On November 9, 2015, petitioner filed her petition without supporting documentation or
medical records. Petitioner was originally represented by counsel, Richard Gage, but he filed a
motion to withdraw from the case on May 8, 2017. During a subsequent status conference on
May 24, 2017, in which petitioner appeared prose, I strongly recommended to petitioner that she
obtain an attorney to represent her in this matter. I explained to petitioner that she needed to
1 Pursuant to the E-Govemment Act of 2002, see 44 U .S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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. Before the decision
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 I 8(b). "An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed
redacted version of the decision." Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision
will be posted on the court's website without any changes. id.

Case 1:15-vv-01348-UNJ Document 39 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 3
submit expert testimony and other pertinent evidence related to her claim, which would be more
easily accomplished through an attorney. Petitioner was provided with a list of attorneys who
accept vaccine injury claims, and I ordered her to either file a status report indicating how she
intended to proceed and successfully prove a case in the Program or to have an attorney file a
motion for substitution of counsel by June 26, 2017. Petitioner did not meet this deadline or
make other contact with the court.
An Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
was issued on July 11, 2017. Petitioner's deadline to respond to that Order was August 9, 2017.
After petitioner did not respond, my law clerk made several attempts to contact petitioner. She
left voicemail messages for petitioner on September 5, 2017; September 14, 2017; and again on
September 27, 2017.
On October 12, 2017, I issued a Final Order to Show Cause to allow petitioner additional
time to contact my chambers. On October 18, 2017, petitioner called my law clerk to request an
informal motion for extension of time to comply with the Order to Show Cause. I granted an
extension until November 22, 2017, for petitioner to file a status report or have an attorney file a
motion for substitution of counsel. Petitioner was again provided with a list of attorneys who
accept vaccine injury claims and instructions for filing documents with the court.
On November 17, 2017, petitioner emailed my law clerk detailing her attempts to obtain
counsel and requesting another informal motion for extension of time to comply with the Order
to Show Cause. I again granted the extension, but noted that I did not anticipate granting further
extensions unless an attorney had entered an appearance in the case and filed a status report
indicating how he or she intended to proceed with this claim. Petitioner's deadline to comply
was extended to January 2, 2018. To date, petitioner has not filed either a motion for substitution
of counsel or a status report.
II. Conclusion
A petitioner must establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program, through
one of two ways. The first way is to establish that he or she suffered a "Table Injury," i.e., that
he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and subsequently developed a
corresponding injury within a corresponding period of time. § 300aa-11 ( c )( 1) . The second way
is to establish that the vaccine actually caused the onset or significant aggravation of a condition
in the vaccinee. § 300aa-13(a)(l )(A). To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a
medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable
temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Alt hen v. Sec '.Y ofH ealth &
Human Servs~, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the present case, petitioner does not allege, nor do the medical records indicate, that
I.O. suffered a Table Injury. Thus, to prevail on entitlement, petitioner must establish that the
vaccines are the actual cause ofl.O.'s injuries. Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be
awarded compensation based solely on the petitioner's claims. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(l). In the present case, the submitted medical records alone are insufficient to establish
2

Case 1:15-vv-01348-UNJ Document 39 Filed 03/20/18 Page 3 of 3
entitlement to compensation by showing vaccine causation, and petitioner has not submitted an
expert report providing a medical theory linking I.O. 's injury to the vaccines administered on
November 20, 2012. Petitioner has not fulfilled her burden under the Vaccine Act and A/then,
and it is therefore appropriate to dismiss her claim for insufficient proof.
Further, when a petitioner fails to follow court orders, the special master can dismiss the
petitioner's claim. Tsekouras v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff'd
per curiam, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Saphasas v. Sec'y ofH ealth & Human Servs., 35 Fed.
Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 2l(b). Petitioner was granted multiple extensions of time but she
still has not complied with the Order to Show Cause, and she has to date not contacted my
chambers regarding her most recent missed filing deadline. This repeated failure to meet
deadlines or otherwise inform the court constitutes a failure to prosecute, which is separate
grounds for dismissal of petitioner's claim.
Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims,
this claim is DISMISSED for petitioner's failure to prosecute and failure to respond to
court orders. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Special Master
3