VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01236
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01236
Petitioner: Crystal Cloud
Filed: 2016-09-30
Decided: 2019-04-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-10-02
Condition: ulnar nerve damage/brachial plexitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Crystal Cloud filed a petition on September 30, 2016, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered ulnar nerve damage and brachial plexitis as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 2, 2013. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On March 21, 2019, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Dismiss her petition, conceding that without an expert report to support her claim, she was unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the Program. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor persuasive evidence that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injuries. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical records, or expert opinions that were considered insufficient, nor does it name any specific experts. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Crystal Cloud alleged ulnar nerve damage/brachial plexitis following an influenza vaccine on October 2, 2013. The case was dismissed on April 25, 2019, by Special Master Herbrina Sanders due to insufficient proof. Petitioner conceded that without an expert report, she could not prove entitlement. The record lacked evidence of a Table Injury and persuasive evidence that the flu vaccine caused the alleged injuries. Medical records were deemed insufficient, and no expert opinion was filed. Petitioner's counsel was Amy A. Senerth, and Respondent's counsel was Adriana R. Teitel. The public decision does not specify a mechanism of injury or name any experts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01236-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-04-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/25/2019) regarding 58 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (mkt) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01236-UNJ Document 62 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 25, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CRYSTAL CLOUD, * No. 16-1236V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Influenza
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“flu”) Vaccine; Ulnar Nerve Damage;
* Brachial Plexitis
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Adriana R. Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION1
On September 30, 2016, Crystal Cloud (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10
to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that she suffered from ulnar nerve damage/brachial plexitis as a
result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 2, 2013. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the
Program.
On March 21, 2019, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Dismiss her petition. ECF No. 57.
In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[w]ithout an expert report to support her claim, [she] is
unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1.
1 This decision shall be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance
with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as
amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with
access to the Internet. As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).
Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted
decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements
of that provision, such material will be withheld from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:16-vv-01236-UNJ Document 62 Filed 04/25/19 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, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
that Petitioner’s alleged injuries were caused by the flu vaccine.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s
claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this
case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in
accordance herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2