Linda Kimbrough v. HHS - Influenza, injection site reaction that resulted in pain, swelling, itching, erythema, induration and ecchymosis, as well as a limp, and scarring (2019)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On February 4, 2016, Linda Kimbrough filed a petition on behalf of her daughter, G.A., alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on December 16, 2014, caused an injection site reaction including pain, swelling, itching, erythema, induration, ecchymosis, a limp, and scarring. G.A. was approximately 1 year and 10 months old at the time of vaccination.
The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that G.A. suffered residual effects from the alleged injury for more than six months after vaccination, a requirement under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
The petitioner submitted various medical records, photographs, and an affidavit to support her claim. However, the court found that the medical records did not substantiate the claim that G.A.'s alleged injuries persisted for at least six months post-vaccination.
While some records noted G.A.'s mother's complaints of pain, swelling, and a limp, medical professionals' observations often contradicted these claims, noting G.A. walked, ran, and climbed without issue. A doctor did observe scarring and hyperpigmentation on G.A.'s thigh approximately five months post-vaccination, but this was not listed as an alleged injury in the petition, and no treatment was recommended.
Furthermore, a physician consulted later opined that the scarring was likely from chronic eczema and was not in the vaccination site. The court concluded that the petitioner's assertions were conclusory and often contradicted by the medical evidence, failing to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.
Therefore, the court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss because the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a six-month duration of injury. The case was dismissed without an award.
Petitioner's counsel was Clifford John Shoemaker. Respondent's counsel was Debra A.
Filteau Begley. Special Master Herbrina Sanders issued the decision.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Linda Kimbrough filed a petition on behalf of G.A., alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on December 16, 2014, caused an injection site reaction including pain, swelling, itching, erythema, induration, ecchymosis, a limp, and scarring. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the petitioner failed to demonstrate the alleged injury persisted for more than six months post-vaccination, a requirement under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment. The petitioner submitted medical records, photographs, and an affidavit. The court found that the medical records did not substantiate the six-month duration requirement. While the petitioner's mother complained of pain, swelling, and a limp, medical observations often contradicted these claims, noting G.A. could walk, run, and climb without issue. A doctor observed scarring and hyperpigmentation on G.A.'s thigh approximately five months post-vaccination, but this was not listed as an alleged injury in the petition, and no treatment was recommended. A physician later opined the scarring was likely from chronic eczema and not the vaccination site. The court concluded the petitioner's assertions were conclusory and contradicted by medical evidence, failing to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. Respondent's motion to dismiss was granted. Petitioner's counsel was Clifford John Shoemaker, and respondent's counsel was Debra A. Filteau Begley. Special Master Herbrina Sanders issued the decision on June 26, 2019.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00170