VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00070
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00070
Petitioner: Rita Pingel
Filed: 2017-01-17
Decided: 2022-03-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-01-22
Condition: severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss in her left ear
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Rita Pingel filed a petition on January 17, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on January 22, 2014, caused severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss in her left ear. The case involved expert reports from Dr. Eric Gershwin and Dr. Paul F. Shea. However, on February 8, 2022, Ms. Pingel filed a motion to dismiss her case. She stated that she could no longer rely on the expert reports from Dr. Gershwin and Dr. Shea and was unable to present evidence to prove her entitlement to compensation. Ms. Pingel acknowledged that this action would result in a judgment against her and that she would forfeit her rights under the Vaccine Act, though she intended to preserve her right to file a civil action. The respondent did not oppose the motion. Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey reviewed the record and Ms. Pingel's motion. The Special Master found that Ms. Pingel did not meet the statutory requirements for entitlement to compensation, as required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) and 13(a)(1)(A). Consequently, the Special Master dismissed the case and ordered that judgment be entered against the petitioner. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. William E. Cochran, Jr. represented the petitioner, and Christine Mary Becer represented the respondent. The decision was issued on March 7, 2022.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Rita Pingel alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on January 22, 2014, caused severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss in her left ear. The public decision does not specify whether the alleged injury is a "Table Injury" or if causation was to be proven. Petitioner relied on expert reports from Dr. Eric Gershwin and Dr. Paul F. Shea, but later moved to dismiss her case, stating she could no longer rely on these reports and was unable to present evidence to prove entitlement. Respondent did not oppose the dismissal. Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey dismissed the case on March 7, 2022, finding petitioner did not meet statutory requirements for entitlement. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert opinions on causation, or the award breakdown, as the case was dismissed upon petitioner's motion. Petitioner was represented by William E. Cochran, Jr., and respondent by Christine Mary Becer.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00070-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-07
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/8/2022) regarding 75 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00070-UNJ Document 81 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: February 8, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RITA PINGEL, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 17-70V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Dismissing Her Petition; Influenza (“Flu”)
* Vaccine; Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren, et al., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On January 17, 2017, Rita Pingel (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”)2 alleging that as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on January 22, 2014, she suffered severe to
profound sensorineural hearing loss in her left ear. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). The
information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On February 8, 2022, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that
she “no longer intends to rely upon expert reports of Dr. Eric Gershwin (filed as Exhibits 8, 49,
104, and 127) and Dr. Paul F. Shea (filed as Exhibit 47),” and thus, “[p]etitioner is unable to
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned is required to post it 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). This means the Decision will
be available to anyone with access to the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b),
petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure
of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such
material from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual
section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:17-vv-00070-UNJ Document 81 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 2
present evidence to prove entitlement to compensation in the vaccine program.” Petitioner’s
Motion for Decision Dismissing Her Petition, filed Feb. 8, 2022, at ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 74).
Furthermore, “to proceed further would be unreasonable and a waste the resources of the Court,
[r]espondent, and the vaccine program.” Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner states that she understands that a
decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against her, and that she has been
advised that such judgment will end all of her rights under the Vaccine Act. Id. at ¶ 4. Petitioner
states that she intends to protect her right to file a civil action and to elect to reject the Vaccine
Program judgment to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5. Respondent does not oppose petitioner’s
motion. Id. at ¶ 6.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccination.
See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). The records submitted by petitioner show that he does not meet
the statutory requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) to establish entitlement to
compensation. The Federal Circuit has explained that the eligibility requirements in Section
11(c) are not mere pleading requirements or matters of proof at trial, but instead are “threshold
criteri[a] for seeking entry into the compensation program.” Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 93 F.3d 781, 785-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion and a review of the record, the undersigned
finds that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Thus, this case is dismissed. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
2