CT v. HHS - Hepatitis B, egg and pea allergies (2019)

Filed 2019-04-12Decided 2019-07-30Vaccine Hepatitis B
dismissed

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

K.T. and K.T., as parents and natural guardians of their minor son CT, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 12, 2019. They alleged that CT suffered injuries, specifically egg and pea allergies, as a result of Hepatitis B and pneumococcal conjugate vaccinations received on February 13, 2015, and DTaP-Hib-IPV and separate Hib vaccinations received on August 24, 2015.

The respondent filed a report stating that the petitioners had not met their burden of proof, failing to establish the nature of CT's injuries and a causal relationship to the vaccinations. Petitioners were granted multiple extensions to file an expert report.

Following a status conference, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss their own claim, acknowledging they would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master noted that petitioners must prove a Table Injury or that a vaccine actually caused their injury, and that claims must be supported by medical records or expert opinion.

As there was insufficient evidence in the record, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. No compensation was awarded.

The decision was issued by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on July 30, 2019.

Petitioner's counsel was Robert J. Krakow, and respondent's counsel was Camille M.

Collett.

Theory of causation

Petitioners alleged that CT suffered egg and pea allergies as a result of Hepatitis B and pneumococcal conjugate vaccinations received on February 13, 2015, and DTaP-Hib-IPV and separate Hib vaccinations received on August 24, 2015. The respondent stated that petitioners failed to establish the nature of CT's injuries and a causal relationship to the vaccinations. Petitioners were granted multiple extensions to file an expert report but ultimately filed a motion to dismiss their claim, stating they would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof, noting that claims must be supported by medical records or expert opinion, neither of which was sufficiently present in the record. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert opinions, or detailed clinical findings. The case was dismissed on July 30, 2019, by Special Master Katherine E. Oler, with petitioner's counsel Robert J. Krakow and respondent's counsel Camille M. Collett involved.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded