Philip Ngo v. HHS - MMR, autism spectrum disorder (2017)

On November 9, 2016, Philip Ngo, as father and legal guardian of A.N., a minor, filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, administered on November 18, 2013, caused A.N. to develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

A.N. was born on November 7, 2012. The available records indicated an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery, and normal early development, including crawling at four months and babbling at three months.

There was no record of an immediate reaction following the November 2013 vaccinations. Petitioner first reported concerns about reduced babbling when A.N. was sixteen to eighteen months old, several months after vaccination.

A.N. was evaluated at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) on April 17, 2015, where Dr. Lark Huang-Storms diagnosed significant ASD symptoms, including repetitive behaviors, restricted interests, limited joint attention, and lack of words or babbling.

The public decision does not describe the specific clinical course, onset symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments beyond the OHSU evaluation and subsequent evaluations noting ASD symptoms and the need for educational and therapeutic treatments. Petitioner's counsel was Philip Ngo, pro se.

Respondent's counsel was Linda Renzi. Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran presided over the case. Special Master Corcoran ordered Petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to its similarity to previously unsuccessful autism claims.

Petitioner responded with a letter alleging suppressed CDC evidence linking the MMR vaccine to autism but did not address A.N.'s specific medical course or provide a reliable causation theory. Respondent did not file a brief in response to this letter.

Special Master Corcoran dismissed the case on September 18, 2017, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, or a medically acceptable temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. The Special Master noted the lack of persuasive medical theory, the absence of a logical sequence of cause and effect, and an onset interval too long to suggest vaccine causation.

No compensation was awarded. The decision was reissued for publication on November 14, 2017.