J.B. v. HHS - DTaP, Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (2020)

On February 8, 2016, Jay P. Bhattacharyya and Farrah E.

Bhattacharyya, parents of J.B., a minor, filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They alleged that their child developed Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus as a result of receiving the third dose of the diphtheria tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine on February 14, 2013.

The petitioners initially supported their claim with an expert report from Dr. Francis W.

Ruscetti, and the respondent filed an opposing expert report from Dr. Penelope A.

Morel. Supplemental reports were also filed by both parties.

However, on July 27, 2020, the petitioners informed the court that they would no longer rely on Dr. Ruscetti's expert opinion.

Subsequently, on August 3, 2020, the petitioners filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition, stating they were unable to prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable and a waste of resources. The respondent did not oppose the dismissal but reserved the right to question the good faith and reasonable basis for the filing in opposition to any motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The petitioners indicated their intent to protect their rights to file a civil action in the future, electing to reject the Vaccine Program judgment. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine.

Proving causation in fact requires demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The Special Master noted that J.B.'s medical records alone did not support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petitioners no longer had a reliable expert opinion supporting their claim since they withdrew reliance on Dr.

Ruscetti's reports. The Special Master also found that Dr.

Ruscetti's opinion did not provide persuasive evidence of entitlement and that the respondent's competing medical opinion refuted the petitioners' allegations. Accordingly, Special Master Daniel T.

Horner granted the petitioners' motion and dismissed the petition due to insufficient proof. The clerk of the court was directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.