Carmen James v. HHS - Influenza, seizures and Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (“Anti-NMDAR”) receptor encephalitis (2017)

Filed 2015-12-28Decided 2017-10-25Vaccine Influenza
dismissedcognitive/developmental

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

On December 28, 2015, Carmen James filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, A.J., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.J. suffered from seizures and Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (Anti-NMDAR) receptor encephalitis as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2014.

The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On October 20, 2017, the petitioner moved for a dismissal of her claim, stating a desire to pursue civil litigation against third parties.

The petitioner acknowledged that this dismissal would terminate any rights within the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The respondent did not oppose the dismissal.

Special Master Herbrina Sanders reviewed the case. To receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine.

The public decision states that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to prove entitlement. Specifically, the medical records alone were insufficient, and the expert report, absent testimony, did not establish causation.

Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly. The decision was issued on October 25, 2017.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Carmen James, on behalf of minor A.J., alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2014, caused seizures and Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (Anti-NMDAR) receptor encephalitis. The petition was filed on December 28, 2015. The public decision by Special Master Herbrina Sanders, dated October 25, 2017, notes that the petitioner moved for dismissal to pursue civil litigation, acknowledging this would terminate Vaccine Injury Compensation Program rights. The respondent did not oppose dismissal. The Special Master found insufficient proof of entitlement, stating the medical records alone were insufficient and the expert report, absent testimony, did not establish causation. Therefore, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. No specific mechanism of injury or expert testimony details were provided in the public text. The outcome was dismissal.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded