Valerie Silver v. HHS - HPV, adverse reaction (2020)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Valerie Silver filed a petition on August 18, 2016, on behalf of her minor daughter, R.S., alleging an adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, also known as Gardasil, which R.S. received on August 21, 2013. The petition was filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
To be eligible for compensation, the petitioner was required to prove either that R.S. suffered an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a "Table Injury") or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The public decision does not describe the specific adverse reaction alleged or any symptoms, medical tests, or treatments.
The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury." On August 3, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her petition, stating her intention to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party action against the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, in district court. Respondent did not object to this motion.
Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that a closer review of the record was not warranted given the motion for dismissal. Consequently, the Special Master dismissed the petition.
The decision was issued on August 4, 2020, and the Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly. The public decision does not name petitioner counsel or respondent counsel.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Valerie Silver, on behalf of minor R.S., alleged an adverse reaction to the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) received on August 21, 2013. The petition was filed on August 18, 2016. To receive compensation, Petitioner needed to prove either a Table Injury or actual causation. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury. On August 3, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her petition to opt out of the Vaccine Program and pursue a third-party action against Merck. Respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina Sanders dismissed the petition on August 4, 2020, finding a closer review of the record unwarranted due to the dismissal motion. The public decision does not detail the specific adverse reaction, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, expert testimony, or the mechanism of injury. No award was made as the case was dismissed.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01019