VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00833
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00833
Petitioner: Hannah Diedrich
Filed: 2016-07-14
Decided: 2018-04-06
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2013-07-18
Condition: generalized nausea, dizziness, severe weakness, pain, heart palpitations, and bouts of extreme weight loss, depression, anxiety, fatigue, malar rash, extreme weight loss, and mitral valve prolapse, diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Hannah Diedrich filed a petition on July 14, 2016, seeking compensation for injuries she alleged were caused by the Human papillomavirus (HPV) and Meningococcal vaccines received on July 18, 2013. She claimed the vaccines caused generalized nausea, dizziness, severe weakness, pain, heart palpitations, extreme weight loss, depression, anxiety, fatigue, a malar rash, mitral valve prolapse, and ultimately a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in February/March 2016. The petition was filed approximately two years and eleven months after vaccination. Petitioner filed her medical records in March 2017. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report contesting the claims due to scant medical records and questioning the reliability of Petitioner's expert. The Special Master noted a year-long gap in medical records following vaccination and ordered Petitioner to explain these gaps and provide additional records. Petitioner repeatedly sought extensions and failed to meet deadlines. Ultimately, the Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute, finding no evidence of a Table injury and insufficient evidence to establish causation for an off-Table injury. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to support her claims and abused her discretion by failing to prosecute the case.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00833-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-11-14
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/3/2017) Regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 26 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-833V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HANNAH DIEDRICH, * Special Master Corcoran
*
* Filed: October 3, 2017
Petitioner, *
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;
* Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Act; Denial Without Hearing.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Benjamin Scott Barnes, Hall and Butler, Bowie, MD, for Petitioner.
Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE1
On July 14, 2016, Hannah Deidrich filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 The Petition alleged that the Human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine and Meningococcal vaccine she received on July 18, 2013,
caused her to develop various injuries, including generalized nausea, dizziness, severe weakness,
pain, heart palpitations, and bouts of extreme weight loss. See Petition (“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1) at 1.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available.
Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 26 Filed 11/14/17 Page 2 of 3
Petitioner filed her medical records in mid-March 2017. Thereafter, the parties filed the
Joint Statement of Completion on March 15, 2017 (ECF No. 13), and Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report on June 16, 2017, contesting Petitioner’s right to damages (ECF No. 15).
On June 28, 2017, after a status conference, I issued an order setting forth my concerns
regarding the gaps in factual history in Petitioner’s case based on the representations in the Rule
4(c) Report. In it, I explained to Petitioner that there appeared to be a year-long gap following her
vaccination before she reported experiencing any symptoms related to the injury alleged in the
Petition. See Order, dated June 28, 2017 (ECF No. 16). I further explained that the lack of medical
records during this gap period undercuts Petitioner’s assertion that her July 2013 vaccinations
relate to her alleged injury. I also observed during the conference, consistent with the Rule 4(c)
Report, that Petitioner will rely on an expert who has been largely discredited in the Program. See
Rule 4(c) Report at 5 n.6 (ECF No. 15). In light of these evidentiary deficiencies, I directed
Petitioner to file a response to the Rule 4(c) Report explaining the identified gaps and identifying
any additional medical records reflecting treatment during the year-long gap period.
On August 4, 2017, Petitioner filed a status report requesting an extension of time to
respond to the my order, which I granted, extending the deadline to September 5, 2017. See ECF
No. 17. Petitioner ignored this deadline, however, on September 7, 2017, I issued an order directing
Petitioner to file the overdue response immediately. See Order dated Sept. 7, 2017 (ECF No. 18).
In response, Petitioner field a status report on that same day requesting yet another extension of
time to review and obtain medical evidence relating to the deficiencies discussed in the June 2017
status conference. See ECF No. 19. On September 11, 2017, I issued an order directing Petitioner
to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b). ECF
No. 20. Petitioner filed a response on September 13, 2017 alleging that she was acting on the
court’s recommendation that she locate a new expert witness, but otherwise repeats her prior
(unsubstantiated) allegations. ECF No. 21 at 4. Respondent filed a response on September 29, 2017
arguing that Petitioner’s claim lacked reasonable basis and should be dismissed. ECF No. 22 at 4.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record, however, does
not uncover any evidence that Ms. Diedrich suffered a Table injury. Moreover, under the Vaccine
Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone.
Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent
medical expert. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record
for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must
be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
2

Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 26 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 3
Furthermore, when a Vaccine Court petitioner fails to comply with orders to prosecute her
case, a court may dismiss the matter. Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed. Cl.
503 (1996); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d
819 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Vaccine Rule 21(b). Here, as is abundantly evident from the procedural
history, Ms. Diedrich has repeatedly failed to adhere to the orders in this matter, thus establishing
grounds for dismissal.
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00833-1
Date issued/filed: 2018-04-06
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/22/2018) regarding 28 Order on Motion for Review, Judge Vaccine Order/Opinion Signed by Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. (ejg) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 30 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 16-833V
(Filed Under Seal: March 22, 2018)
(Reissued: April 6, 2018)1
************************************ *
*
HANNAH DIEDRICH, *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Dismissal of Vaccine Claim; Failure to
* Prosecute.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
************************************ *
Benjamin Barnes, The John Hall Law Group, LLC., Bowie, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Glenn A. Macleod, with whom were Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Acting Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, and
Catharine E. Reeves, Deputy Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
WHEELER, Judge.
This vaccine case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Review of the
Special Master’s October 3, 2017 decision dismissing the petition for insufficient proof
and for failure to prosecute under Vaccine Rule 21(b). Diedrich v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 16-833V, 2017 WL 5381312 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 3, 2017)
1 Pursuant to Rule 18(b) of the Court’s Vaccine Rules, this opinion and order was initially filed under seal. As
required under the Rules, each party was afforded 14 days from the date of issue, until April 5, 2018, to object to the
public disclosure of any information furnished by that party. Neither party submitted any proposed redactions.

Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 30 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 4
(“Decision”). For the reasons explained below, the Court affirms the Special Master’s
dismissal decision.
Background
On July 14, 2016, Hannah Diedrich filed a petition under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 through 34 (“Vaccine Act”), seeking
compensation for injuries she claims were caused by the Human papillomavirus (“HPV”)
vaccine and the Meningococcal vaccine she received on July 18, 2013. In her Affidavit,
Ms. Diedrich states that about two months after the vaccinations, she had a “sudden onset
of depression, anxiety, fatigue, weakness, heart palpitations, joint pain and inability to
regulate body temperature.” Dkt. No. 1, at Ex. 2. She goes on to describe other physical
ailments occurring in the years following the vaccinations, including a malar rash, extreme
weight loss, and mitral valve prolapse. She states that she received a diagnosis of systemic
lupus erythematosus (“SLA”), an autoimmune disease, in February and March 2016.
Additional medical records were filed in March 2017, and Respondent filed the
required Rule 4(c) Report in June 2017. In the Report, Respondent contested Petitioner’s
claims, arguing that there was no supporting evidence in the “scant” submitted medical
records and questioning the reliability of Petitioner’s expert. Dkt. No. 15. The Special
Master then held an initial status conference in June 2017 during which he discussed the
evidence submitted by Petitioner up to that point. During the status conference, the Special
Master also questioned the reliability of Petitioner’s expert who had been “largely
discredited in the Program.” Decision at 2. In his Order following the status conference,
the Special Master noted that there were no medical records relevant to the injury
complained of for the year after vaccination, thereby weakening the claimed relation of the
injury to the vaccinations. The Special Master ordered Petitioner to file a response to the
Rule 4(c) Report, and to include more detail and further medical records to support the
claimed injury, since the lack of evidence in the records raised “the possibility that the
claim might not have any reasonable basis to continue.” Dkt. No. 16.
Petitioner claimed in subsequent status reports to have additional records and to
have located another medical expert, and sought an extension of time to file the response
to the Rule 4(c) Report. Dkt. No. 17. In a text order granting a thirty-day extension, the
Special Master added a warning that “no further extensions of time shall be permitted.”
The Petitioner then failed to meet the new deadline, submitting a response only after the
Special Master ordered a response, and again asking for an extension of time. Dkt. No. 19.
The Special Master then issued a show cause order threatening dismissal, and Petitioner
filed a response to the show cause reiterating the value of the original expert’s evidence,
but failing to add any further medical records or additional expert opinion. Dkt. No. 21.
The Special Master then issued his Decision dismissing the case for insufficient proof and
failure to prosecute.
2

Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 30 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 4
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
Petitioners apparently seek recovery in this case for an “off-Table” injury, that is,
an injury caused by a vaccine other than those injuries listed on the Vaccine Injury Table,
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(a). In off-Table injuries, claimants must show causation in fact by
a preponderance of the evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii), 300aa-13(a)(1)(A);
see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
2010). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarized the claimant’s
evidentiary burden associated with off-Table cases in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005), holding that he must establish by
preponderant evidence:
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the
reason for the injury; and
(3) a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.
These factors are now commonly referred to as the three Althen prongs.
II. Standard of Review
This Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Special Masters in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1)-(2). The Special Master’s findings of fact receive
deferential review under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard, while the Court reviews
legal conclusions under the “not in accordance with law” standard and discretionary rulings
for an “abuse of discretion.” Munn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870
n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A dismissal for failure to prosecute is reviewed under the abuse of
discretion standard. Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183
(Fed. Cir. 1990); Adkins v. United States, 816 F.2d 1580, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
III. Motion for Review and Response
In the Motion for Review, Petitioner argues that the Special Master did not
reasonably justify his finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support
Petitioner’s claims, or his finding that Petitioner’s expert witness was unreliable. Further,
Petitioner objects to the Special Master’s denial of adequate additional time to locate a
second expert witness.
3

Case 1:16-vv-00833-TCW Document 30 Filed 04/06/18 Page 4 of 4
In the Response to the Motion for Review, Respondent argues that “[t]he record as
a whole fails to establish petitioner’s entitlement to compensation.” Dkt. No. 27 at 11.
Respondent observes that the expert report offered by Petitioner relied largely upon
Petitioner’s assertion of symptoms with no support in any submitted medical records. No
treating physicians connected any illness or condition to vaccination. Further, Respondent
argues that Petitioner’s failure to provide additional records to meet the Special Master’s
objections despite several extensions, shows that “the factual inadequacies of the record
were unlikely to be cured with more time.” Id. at 13. With respect to Petitioner’s claims
that denial of more time for filing a new expert report was unfair, Respondent notes that an
expert report without first developing the factual evidence for the expert to review would
be premature.
The Court has reviewed the record in this case and has concluded that it was not an
abuse of discretion for the Special Magistrate to dismiss the Petition under Vaccine Rule
21(b), in light of Petitioner’s failure to provide evidence. The medical records that were
submitted show no clear diagnosis of the SLA complained of; in fact, a reference to
possible SLA does not occur until February 2016, about two and a half years after
vaccination. No treating physician noted any link to vaccination. Petitioner’s affidavit
accompanying the petition details complaints of illness following vaccination, but very few
medical records to support the claims were submitted. When the evidentiary gaps were
noted by the Special Master, Petitioner apparently could not provide further medical
evidence after several extensions of response deadlines. Petitioner’s expert report
discussed her symptoms as described by Petitioner, but cited few actual records of treating
physicians. As the Special Master noted, the Vaccine Act describes the evidence that can
be used to prove vaccine-caused injuries, but it cannot be based on Petitioner’s claims
alone. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1) and 13(a). Thus, the opinion of any expert without clear
facts is not useful, and his reliability in this case need not be addressed by the Court.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the Special Master did not abuse his discretion in concluding
that Petitioner was unable to provide adequate evidence to support her claims, and thus
could not help but fail to prosecute the case. For these reasons, the Special Master’s
decision is AFFIRMED, and Petitioner’s Motion for Review is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas C. Wheeler
THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge
4