VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01620
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01620
Petitioner: C.B.
Filed: 2016-12-07
Decided: 2017-07-10
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2013-12-09
Condition: infantile spasms (or West Syndrome) and developmental delay
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On December 7, 2016, Daniele Strawmyre Butler filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, C.B., alleging that a DTaP vaccination received on December 9, 2013, caused infantile spasms (West Syndrome) and developmental delay. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report indicating the claim was not appropriate for compensation. After reviewing the medical records and the respondent's report, Special Master Brian H. Corcoran noted concerns about the claim's viability, specifically that the medical records did not appear to support a finding that the alleged reaction occurred sooner than four to five weeks post-vaccination. The Special Master also informed the petitioner of other Vaccine Program decisions that had rejected her proposed causation theory. Following these discussions, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition, recognizing the difficulty in meeting the burden of proof and wishing to conserve the Vaccine Program's resources. The Special Master found insufficient evidence in the record to establish a Table Injury or that the DTaP vaccination caused or significantly aggravated C.B.'s alleged injury. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Daniele Strawmyre Butler, on behalf of minor C.B., alleged that a DTaP vaccination on December 9, 2013, caused infantile spasms (West Syndrome) and developmental delay. The respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, indicated the claim was not appropriate for compensation. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran noted that the medical records did not appear to support a reaction occurring sooner than four to five weeks post-vaccination and rejected the proposed causation theory, citing other decisions. The petitioner subsequently moved for dismissal, acknowledging the difficulty in meeting the burden of proof and the desire to conserve program resources. The Special Master found insufficient evidence in the record to establish a Table Injury or that the DTaP vaccination caused or significantly aggravated C.B.'s alleged injury. No medical expert opinions were presented in the public text. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof on July 10, 2017. Attorneys for Petitioner were Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, and for Respondent was Colleen C. Hartley of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01620-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-07-10
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/16/2017) regarding 17 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01620-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1620V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DANIELE STRAWMYRE BUTLER, on * Special Master Corcoran
behalf of her minor child, C.B., *
*
* Filed: June 16, 2017
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
* Dismissing the Petition;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; Denial without Hearing.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Colleen C. Hartley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICENT PROOF1
On December 7, 2016, Daniele Strawmyre Butler filed a petition on behalf of her minor
child, C.B., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the
“Vaccine Program”).2 The petition alleges that the Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis
(“DTaP”) vaccination that C.B. received on December 9, 2013, caused him to suffer a severe
adverse reaction, including infantile spasms (or West Syndrome) and developmental delay.
1 Although it has not been formally designated for publication, this decision will 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 (2012). This means
the ruling 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 published decisions inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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 whole decision will be available to the public
in its current form. 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, 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.

Case 1:16-vv-01620-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 3
After some medical records relevant to Petitioner’s case were filed (see ECF Nos. 7-8),
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and represented that he did not think this claim was
appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 12. I held a status conference thereafter and expressed my
concerns about the claim’s viability, based on Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report as well as my
preliminary consideration of the medical records. See Scheduling Order, dated April 28, 2017
(ECF No. 13). I noted that the records did not appear to support a finding that C.B.’s alleged
reaction occurred any sooner than four to five weeks following vaccination, and informed
Petitioner of the other Vaccine Program decisions that persuasively rejected her proposed
causation theory. Id. In light of these concerns, I urged Petitioner to consider whether she would
still like to go forward with her claim and obtain an expert report, or whether she would move for
a dismissal. Id.
After several extensions of time, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the
Petition on June 14, 2017. ECF No. 16. In it, Petitioner stated that she recognized she would likely
be unable to meet her burden of proof and establish entitlement to compensation, and that to
proceed further would waste the Vaccine Program’s resources. ECF No. 16 at 1-2. She also noted
her intent to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future. Id. at 2.
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 one of his vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record, however, does
not uncover any evidence that C.B. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain
a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that C.B.’s alleged injury
could have been caused or significantly aggravated by the DTaP vaccination that he received on
December 9, 2013. The filed medical records also do not support Petitioner’s claim.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be given 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 physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence
in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed
and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
2

Case 1:16-vv-01620-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3