VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00716 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00716 Petitioner: Iola Sykes Filed: 2017-05-31 Decided: 2018-12-21 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2016-09-06 Condition: Optic Neuritis Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Iola Sykes filed a petition on May 31, 2017, alleging that she suffered from Optic Neuritis as a result of a Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (TDaP) vaccination she received on September 6, 2016. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. After investigating the facts and science, Ms. Sykes concluded that she would be unable to prove her entitlement to compensation and submitted a motion requesting that her petition be dismissed. The respondent did not object to the dismissal. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that to receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it contain sufficient evidence that the TDaP vaccination caused Ms. Sykes' alleged optic neuritis. The public decision does not describe the onset or specific symptoms of the optic neuritis, nor does it mention any medical records, tests, or treatments. The public decision also does not name any experts consulted by the petitioner or the respondent, nor does it detail a specific mechanism of causation. The court dismissed the case for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Iola Sykes alleged that a Tdap vaccination received on September 6, 2016, caused her to suffer from Optic Neuritis. The petition was filed on May 31, 2017. Petitioner later moved for dismissal, conceding that she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that the record lacked evidence of a Table Injury and insufficient evidence that the Tdap vaccination caused the alleged optic neuritis. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, the mechanism of injury, or name any experts. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof. No award was made. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00716-0 Date issued/filed: 2019-02-12 Pages: 2 Docket text: cision with keywords) (ypb).PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/21/2018) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (mkt) Service on parties made. (Main Document 50 replaced on 2/12/2019 to attach de -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:17-vv-00716-UNJ Document 50 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 21, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IOLA SYKES, * * No. 17-716V Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision; Optic Neuritis; Tetanus- AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (“TDaP”) * Vaccine; Dismissal; Insufficient Proof Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DECISION1 On May 31, 2017, Iola Sykes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program” or “Act”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2012).2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Optic Neuritis as a result of the Tetanus- Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccination she received on September 6, 2016. Petition, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On December 17, 2018, Petitioner submitted a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her petition. ECF No. 46. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting this case, including consultation with an appropriate qualified neuro- opthalmologist, has demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. Therefore, Petitioner requested that the undersigned issue a decision dismissing her case. Id. Respondent did not object to Petitioner’s Motion. Id. at 2. 1 This decision shall 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 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–660, 100 Stat. 3755. 1 Case 1:17-vv-00716-UNJ Document 50 Filed 02/12/19 Page 2 of 2 To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain evidence that the injury alleged by Petitioner was caused by the TDaP vaccination. Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to support Petitioner’s claim that her vaccination caused her alleged injury, this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2