VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00170
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00170
Petitioner: M.V.
Filed: 2017-07-20
Decided: 2017-08-23
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2013-12-31
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 20, 2017, Christi Fieselman filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, M.V., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination M.V. received on December 31, 2013, caused injury. After some medical records were filed, Special Master Brian H. Corcoran noted concerns about the claim's sufficiency. Despite maintaining that the vaccination caused M.V.'s injuries, the petitioner stated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation and requested a dismissal. The Special Master's decision noted that the record lacked evidence of a "Table Injury" and contained no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence linking the alleged injury to the vaccination. The filed medical records did not support the petitioner's claim. The Special Master found insufficient evidence in the record for the petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, and respondent's counsel was Ilene C. Albala of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Christi Fieselman, on behalf of minor M.V., alleged that an HPV vaccination on December 31, 2013, caused injury. The public decision does not specify the alleged injury or M.V.'s age at vaccination. Petitioner sought compensation under the Vaccine Program but later filed an unopposed motion to dismiss, stating she would be unable to prove entitlement. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, noted the absence of evidence for a "Table Injury" and the lack of a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence linking the alleged injury to the vaccination. The filed medical records were also found insufficient to support the claim. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof on August 23, 2017. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and respondent's counsel was Ilene C. Albala.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00170-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-08-23
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/20/2017) Regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00170-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-170V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CHRISTI FIESELMAN, on behalf of her *
minor child, M.V., *
* Filed: July 20, 2017
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
* Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ilene C. Albala, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICENT PROOF1
On February 6, 2017, Christi Fieselman filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, M.V.,
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 In it, Petitioner alleged that the human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccination that M.V.
received on December 31, 2013, injured M.V. ECF No. 1.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501
(2014)). This means the decision 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. 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 1:17-vv-00170-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 2
After some medical records relevant to Petitioner’s case were filed (see ECF Nos. 7 and
14), I noted my concern with her claim based on an initial review. After additional, unsuccessful
attempts to obtain documentation to support her claim, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion on
July 19, 2017, requesting a decision dismissing her claim. ECF No. 24. In it, Petitioner states that
although she still maintains that the vaccination caused M.V.’s injuries, she “can reach no
conclusion other than she will likely be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program” and thus cannot continue to pursue her claim. Id. She further reserved her right
to file a civil action pursuant to Section 21(a)(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 her 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 Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not
contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged
injury that M.V. experienced could have been caused or significantly aggravated by the
vaccination that she received on December 31, 2013. And the filed medical records 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2