VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01296
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01296
Petitioner: M.M.P.
Filed: 2016-12-27
Decided: 2017-12-27
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 2016-02-15
Condition: rash, photosensitivity, hypersensitivity of her skin, muscle rigidity, irritability, anaphylaxis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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 field:
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.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01296-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-12-27
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/28/2017) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01296-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/27/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:16-vv-01296-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/27/17 Page 2 of 3
attorney of record for petitioner. Petitioner’s motion was granted on December 22, 2016 (ECF
No. 11).
On February 6, 2017, petitioner was ordered to file all outstanding medical records and a
statement of completion by March 6, 2017. Petitioner was given a one day extension of time to
comply with this Order, and medical records and a statement of completion were filed on March
7-8, 2017.
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on April 7, 2017, recommending against
compensation. The undersigned held a Rule 5 conference in the case on May 16, 2017, during
which time she shared her preliminary findings with the parties. During the Rule 5 conference,
the parties discussed the two issues raised by respondent in the Rule 4(c) Report: the lack of
support in the medical records for some of the alleged injuries, and the lack of proof that
M.M.P.’s rash caused a six-month residual injury. The undersigned gave her tentative finding
that several of petitioner’s alleged injuries were not supported by the medical records and that
there was no evidence in the record that M.M.P.’s injuries persisted for more than six months.
The undersigned noted that there was no diagnosis from a physician consistent with anaphylaxis,
and she stated that it appeared from the record that M.M.P.’s eczema pre-dated her receipt of the
vaccines on February 15, 2016. The undersigned ordered petitioner to file additional medical
records in support of her claims that M.M.P. suffered from photosensitivity, hypersensitivity of
her skin, muscle rigidity, irritability, and other alleged injuries. The undersigned allowed
petitioner 60 days to file these records.
After the Rule 5 conference, petitioner filed three motions for extension of time to file
medical records, all of which the undersigned granted. In total, the undersigned allowed
petitioner five months in which to file additional medical records. On October 3, 2017,
petitioner filed a statement of completion and an affidavit summarizing her daughter’s medical
history.
On October 5, 2017, the undersigned ordered petitioner to file an expert report by
December 5, 2017. The undersigned also warned that in light of the tentative findings during the
Rule 5 conference and the lack of additional medical records, the case could lack a reasonable
basis. Order dated October 5, 2017 (ECF No. 37).
On November 24, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the administrative
record, more appropriately characterized as a motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet.
Mot.”) dated November 24, 2017 (ECF No. 38). Petitioner stated that after consulting with
several experts, she believes that she will be unable to prove that M.M.P. is entitled to
compensation in the Program and that to proceed further would be unreasonable. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.
Petitioner also stated that she understands that a decision dismissing her petition will terminate
all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 10. Furthermore, petitioner wishes to retain
their right to file a civil action in the future and thus intends to elect to reject the Vaccine
Program judgment. Id. at ¶ 12.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either: 1) that M.M.P.
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
2

Case 1:16-vv-01296-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/27/17 Page 3 of 3
to a vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any
evidence that M.M.P. suffered a “Table Injury,” nor does petitioner allege that she suffered a
“Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain any persuasive evidence indicating that
M.M.P.’s injury was caused by the vaccinations she received on February 15, 2016.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on
the petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by
the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. However, petitioner has not filed an expert report.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either that M.M.P. suffered a “Table Injury” or that her injuries were caused-in-fact
by one or more of her vaccinations. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. In the
absence of a motion for review, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGEMENT
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3