VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01258
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01258
Petitioner: J.T.
Filed: 2016-10-03
Decided: 2022-03-18
Vaccine: Tdap, HPV, Meningitis, and/or influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Chi Quach filed a petition on behalf of her minor daughter, J.T., alleging that J.T. suffered from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) as a result of Tdap, HPV, Meningitis, and/or influenza vaccines received between October 4, 2013, and November 1, 2013. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report indicating the case was not appropriate for compensation. Both parties filed expert reports. After numerous extensions, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition, stating that J.T. had reached the age of majority and no longer wished to pursue the matter. The court noted that the petitioner had not met her burden of proof for entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act, as there was insufficient evidence in the record. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01258-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/18/2022) regarding 95 DECISION DISMISSING PETITION. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made. (Modified to correct PDF on 6/28/2022) (tjk).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01258-UNJ Document 102 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 2
corrected
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1258V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
CHI QUACH, on behalf of J.T., a minor,
*
* Special Master Katherine E. Oler
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Filed: March 18, 2022
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;
*
* Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine Act.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On October 3, 2016, Chi Quach (“Petitioner”), filed a petition on behalf of her minor
daughter J.T. for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2
alleging that J.T. suffered from systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”) as a result of the Tdap,
HPV, Meningitis, and/or the influenza (“flu”) vaccines she received between October 4, 2013,
and November 1, 2013. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed supporting medical records on October
10, 2016, January 9, 2017, and June 9, 2017. ECF Nos. 6, 10, 20. Petitioner filed a statement of
completion on June 9, 2017. ECF No. 21.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the Decision 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-01258-UNJ Document 102 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 2
On August 28, 2017, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, indicating he believed that this
case was “not appropriate for compensation under the Act.” Resp’t.’s Rep. at 2, ECF. No. 25.
Petitioner and Respondent both filed expert reports in support of their respective positions.
Ex. 16; Exs. A, C.
On March 30, 2020, Petitioner filed a status report indicating that she wished to file expert
reports in response to Respondent’s expert reports. ECF No. 72. Petitioner requested numerous
extensions of time between June 29, 2020 and March 8, 2022. See ECF Nos. 73, 74, 76, 77, 82,
87, 88, 89, 91, 92, and 93.
On March 18, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Dismiss stating that J.T. had
reached the age of majority and “is not interested in pursuing this matter and has requested that
petitioner dismiss the claim.” Pet’r’s Mot. at 1, ECF No. 94. Petitioner indicated that she
“understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in judgment
against her” and that she has “been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the
Vaccine Program. Id. Petitioner also indicated that she intends to reject the judgment and file a
civil action. Id.
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 her vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). 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. § 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, in accordance with her motion, must be
dismissed. § 11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master