VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01415
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01415
Petitioner: D.T.
Filed: 2015-11-23
Decided: 2016-05-11
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2015-01-30
Condition: Type 1 Diabetes
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 23, 2015, Kimberly and David Tait filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, D.T., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They alleged that D.T. developed Type 1 Diabetes as a result of receiving DTaP, Hib, IPV, and MMR vaccinations on January 30, 2015. The petitioners were represented by Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented by Robert P. Coleman, III of the United States Department of Justice. On February 12, 2016, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their own petition, stating that after investigation, they recognized they would likely be unable to meet their burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation. They understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against them and end D.T.'s rights in the Vaccine Program. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey reviewed the case. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical records, or treatments. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury," nor did the petitioners allege one. Furthermore, the record lacked a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the vaccinations caused D.T.'s injury. The Special Master found that the medical records were insufficient to establish entitlement and that no medical opinion had been offered in support. Consequently, on February 16, 2016, Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a decision dismissing the petition for insufficient proof. Subsequently, on April 12, 2016, the petitioners filed an application for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting $5,576.50 in fees and $700.55 in costs, totaling $6,277.05. The respondent stated they had no objection to the requested amount. On May 11, 2016, Chief Special Master Dorsey granted the motion, awarding a total of $6,277.05, payable jointly to the petitioners and their counsel, Andrew D. Downing.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners Kimberly and David Tait, on behalf of their minor child D.T., alleged that D.T. developed Type 1 Diabetes as a result of receiving DTaP, Hib, IPV, and MMR vaccinations on January 30, 2015. The petitioners later moved to dismiss their petition, recognizing they could not meet their burden of proof. The Special Master found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence demonstrating that the vaccinations caused the alleged injury. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation. The petition was dismissed for insufficient proof. Attorneys' fees and costs totaling $6,277.05 were awarded to petitioners and their counsel, Andrew D. Downing, by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey on May 11, 2016.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01415-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/16/2016) regarding 12 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01415-UNJ Document 16 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
(Filed: February 16, 2016)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
KIMBERLY TAIT and DAVID TAIT * No. 15-1415V
on behalf of their minor child, D.T., *
* Chief Special Master Dorsey
Petitioners, *
* Dismissal; MMR Vaccine; DTaP
v. * Vaccine; IPV Vaccine; Hib Vaccine;
* Type 1 Diabetes
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioners.
Robert P. Coleman, III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On November 23, 2015, Kimberly and David Tait (“petitioners”) filed a petition on
behalf of their minor child, D.T., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act of
1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2012) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioners alleged that as a result
of receiving DTaP, Hib, IPV, and MMR vaccinations on January 30, 2015, D.T. developed Type
1 Diabetes. Petition at Preamble, ¶¶ 9, 11.
On February 12, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing their petition.
In the motion, petitioners state that after investigation into their claim, they “recognize they will
likely be unable to meet their burden of proof and establish that D.T. is entitled to compensation
in the Vaccine Program.” Motion for Decision at ¶ 3. Petitioners state that they understand that
a decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against them, and that such a judgment
will end all rights of D.T.’s rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 5.
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.

Case 1:15-vv-01415-UNJ Document 16 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1) that D.T.
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to her vaccination, or 2) that D.T. 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 D.T. suffered a “Table Injury,” nor do petitioners allege that he suffered a “Table
Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive
evidence indicating that D.T.’s injury was caused by the vaccinations he received on January 30,
2015.
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)(1). In this case, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. Petitioners, however, have not offered such an opinion.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioners have failed to
demonstrate either that D.T. suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were caused-in-fact by
vaccination. 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/Nora B. Dorsey
Nora B. Dorsey
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01415-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/20/2016) regarding 21 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01415-UNJ Document 22 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1415V
Filed: April 20, 2016
* * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
KIMBERLY TAIT and DAVID TAIT, *
on behalf of their minor child, D.T., *
*
Petitioners, * Chief Special Master Dorsey
*
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioners.
Robert P. Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On November 23, 2015, Kimberly and David Tait (“petitioners”) filed a petition on
behalf of their minor child, D.T., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (2012). Petitioners alleged that as a result of receiving
DTaP, Hib, IPV, and MMR vaccinations on January 30, 2015, D.T. developed Type 1 Diabetes.
Petition at Preamble, ¶¶ 9, 11.
On February 12, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing their petition.
A decision dismissing the petition was issued. The undersigned issued a Decision dismissing the
petition on February 16, 2016.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14
days within which to request 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).
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-01415-UNJ Document 22 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2
On April 12, 2016, petitioners filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs,
requesting $5,576.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $700.55 in attorneys’ costs, for a total fees and costs
award of $6,277.05. See Pet’rs’ App. at 1-2. Petitioners’ counsel filed an itemized invoice for
attorneys’ fees and costs with the motion. See id., Exhibit A. In accordance with General Order
#9, petitioners’ counsel states that petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of the claim. Id. at
1.
On April 18, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ application, stating:
Based on a survey of fee awards in similar cases and her experience
litigating Vaccine Act claims, respondent has no objection to the
overall amount requested in petitioners’ motion. However, the lack
of objection should not be construed as an admission, concession, or
waiver as to any of the matters raised by petitioners’ request for
attorney’s fees and costs. . .
Resp’s Response at 2.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
undersigned has reviewed counsel’s time records, tasks performed, and costs requested, and
finds them reasonable. Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of
opposition from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs.
Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $6,277.05 as follows:
(1) A lump sum of $6,277.05 in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioners
and petitioners’ counsel of record, Andrew D. Downing, for attorneys’ fees
and costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2