M.M.P. v. HHS - rash, photosensitivity, hypersensitivity of her skin, muscle rigidity, irritability, anaphylaxis (2017)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On December 27, 2016, M.M.P. filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petitioner alleged that M.M.P. suffered a rash, photosensitivity, hypersensitivity of her skin, muscle rigidity, irritability, and anaphylaxis following vaccinations received on February 15, 2016.
The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on April 7, 2017, recommending against compensation. During a Rule 5 conference on May 16, 2017, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey shared preliminary findings that some alleged injuries were not supported by the medical records and that there was insufficient evidence that M.M.P.'s injuries persisted for more than six months.
The Special Master noted the absence of a physician's diagnosis consistent with anaphylaxis and indicated that M.M.P.'s eczema appeared to predate the vaccinations. Petitioner was granted multiple extensions, totaling five months, to file additional medical records and an expert report.
On November 24, 2017, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her own case, stating that after consulting with experts, she believed she could not prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable. The petitioner also indicated an intent to reject the Program's judgment to preserve the right to file a civil action.
The Special Master found that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" or persuasive evidence that M.M.P.'s injuries were caused by the vaccinations. The Special Master also noted that the medical records were insufficient to establish entitlement and that no expert report had been filed.
Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.
Theory of causation
The petitioner alleged that M.M.P. suffered a rash, photosensitivity, hypersensitivity of her skin, muscle rigidity, irritability, and anaphylaxis following vaccinations received on February 15, 2016. The respondent's Rule 4(c) Report noted a lack of support in the medical records for some alleged injuries and insufficient evidence of a six-month residual injury. During a Rule 5 conference, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey tentatively found that several alleged injuries were not supported by the medical records, that M.M.P.'s eczema appeared to predate the vaccinations, and that there was no diagnosis consistent with anaphylaxis. Petitioner was given extensive opportunities to file additional medical records and an expert report but failed to do so. Ultimately, the petitioner moved to dismiss her case, stating she believed she could not prove entitlement to compensation after consulting with experts. The Special Master concluded that the record lacked evidence of a "Table Injury" or proof that the vaccinations caused the alleged injuries, and that the medical records were insufficient to establish entitlement without an expert report. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey on December 27, 2017. Petitioner counsel was not named in the public decision.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01296