VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01362
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01362
Petitioner: Martha-Helene Stapleton
Filed: 2016-10-19
Decided: 2018-02-09
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2014-11-01
Condition: loss of her child
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 19, 2016, Martha-Helene Stapleton filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that a Tetanus-Diphtheria-Pertussis (Tdap) vaccination she received on November 1, 2014, caused the stillbirth of her child. Ms. Stapleton was 38 years old and 38 weeks pregnant at the time of vaccination. The petition was filed by attorney Diana Stadelnikas of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented by Sarah Duncan of the U.S. Department of Justice. On January 17, 2018, Ms. Stapleton filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, stating that she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the Program. The respondent's counsel indicated no objection to this motion. Special Master Herbrina Sanders reviewed the case. To be eligible for compensation, a petitioner must demonstrate either a "Table Injury" listed in the Vaccine Injury Table or prove that the vaccine actually caused the alleged injury. The public decision states that the record contained no evidence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient persuasive evidence that the Tdap vaccine caused the alleged stillbirth. The decision further noted that awards cannot be based solely on claims; petitions must be supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion. In this instance, the medical records were deemed insufficient, and no expert witness opinion was filed. Consequently, Special Master Sanders dismissed the petition for insufficient proof. The decision was issued on February 9, 2018.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Martha-Helene Stapleton, age 38, received a Tdap vaccine on November 1, 2014, and alleged it caused the stillbirth of her child. The petition was filed on October 19, 2016. Petitioner later filed a motion to dismiss, conceding she could not prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master's decision, issued February 9, 2018, noted the absence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient persuasive evidence that the Tdap vaccine caused the stillbirth. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, onset of symptoms, medical records, treating physicians, or expert testimony. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, with Petitioner's counsel being Diana Stadelnikas and Respondent's counsel being Sarah Duncan. Special Master Herbrina Sanders presided over the dismissal.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01362-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-02-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/17/2018) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (kl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01362-UNJ Document 31 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 17, 2018
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARTHA-HELENE STAPLETON, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 16-1362V
* Special Master Sanders
v. *
* Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Tetanus-
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Diphtheria-Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stillbirth
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Sarah Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 19, 2016, Martha-Helene Stapleton (“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 a Tetanus-Diphtheria-Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination,
which she received on November 1, 2014 when she was 38 weeks pregnant, caused her “to suffer
from the loss of her child.” Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does
not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On January 17, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition. ECF
No. 29. In the motion, Petitioner conceded that “she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to
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). 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 undersigned agrees
that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be
deleted 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).
1

Case 1:16-vv-01362-UNJ Document 31 Filed 02/09/18 Page 2 of 2
compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. Petitioner’s motion states that “Respondent’s
counsel has no objection to th[e] motion.” Id. at 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
her alleged injuries were caused by the Tdap 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 shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2