Michael Colbath v. HHS - HPV, severe adverse reaction (2020)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On May 4, 2017, Kathleen Colbath filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her then-minor son, Michael Colbath, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that Michael suffered a severe adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, specifically Gardasil, which he received on May 6, 2014.
The case was before Special Master Herbrina Sanders. On August 13, 2020, Michael Colbath, represented by Andrew D.
Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, filed a motion to dismiss his petition. He stated his desire to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party action against the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, in district court.
Petitioner emphasized that this decision was a strategic choice to facilitate his opt-out election and did not reflect a lack of belief in the merits of his claim or that his injuries were not a result of Gardasil. Respondent, represented by Mallori Openchowski of the United States Department of Justice, did not object to the motion.
Special Master Sanders noted that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" and that a closer review of causation-in-fact was not warranted given the dismissal request. Consequently, the case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly.
No compensation was awarded. The decision was posted on the court's website on November 13, 2020.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Michael Colbath, a minor at the time, received an HPV vaccine (Gardasil) on May 6, 2014. His mother filed a petition on May 4, 2017, alleging a severe adverse reaction. The public decision does not describe the specific adverse reaction, onset, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew D. Downing. Respondent's counsel was Mallori Openchowski. Special Master Herbrina Sanders presided. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on August 13, 2020, stating a desire to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party action against Merck, emphasizing this was a strategic choice and not a reflection on the merits of his claim. Respondent did not object. The Special Master noted the absence of evidence of a "Table Injury" and that a causation-in-fact review was not warranted due to the dismissal request. The case was dismissed on November 13, 2020, with no award of compensation.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00599