VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01019
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01019
Petitioner: R.S.
Filed: 2016-08-18
Decided: 2020-08-04
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2013-08-21
Condition: adverse reaction
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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 field:
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.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01019-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/04/2020) regarding 86 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (arm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01019-UNJ Document 91 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 4, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VALERIE SILVER, Parent of R.S., *
a minor, * No. 16-1019V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“HPV” or Gardasil); Adverse Reaction
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Christine Becer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DISMISSAL1
On August 18, 2016, Valerie Silver (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on
behalf of her minor daughter, R.S., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that
R.S. suffered an adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (“HPV” or Gardasil) vaccination
she received on August 21, 2013. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
On August 3, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 85. In her motion, Petitioner indicated “[she] has made the choice that she would
like to opt out of the Vaccine Program in advance of the Court ruling on entitlement…[and] wishes
to pursue a third-party action in district court against Merck directly.” Id. at 2-3. She continued,
“[t]his choice should not be viewed in any way that Petitioner does not believe in the merits of her
claim or that R.S.’s injuries are not a result of Gardasil…[she] simply needs a judgment so that
she may reject said judgment and submit her election to opt out.” Id. at 3. Respondent had no
objection to Petitioner’s motion. Id.
1 This Decision shall be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to
the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete
medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the
rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the I
agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be
deleted from public access.

Case 1:16-vv-01019-UNJ Document 91 Filed 08/19/20 Page 2 of 2
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner
suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, a closer review of the record is not warranted in light of
Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition. Therefore, this case must be dismissed.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2