VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00772
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00772
Petitioner: Rebecca DeRitis
Filed: 2017-06-10
Decided: 2018-01-04
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2014-02-20
Condition: Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis, Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis (“PFAPA”) syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Rebecca DeRitis filed a petition on June 10, 2017, on behalf of her son, B.D., alleging that he developed Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis, Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome as a result of a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccination received on February 20, 2014. The case progressed, and on January 4, 2018, Petitioner moved for a dismissal of the petition. Petitioner conceded that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Respondent did not object to the motion. The Special Master's decision noted that to receive compensation, Petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor persuasive evidence that the MMR vaccine caused B.D.'s alleged injury. The medical records were deemed insufficient to prove the claim, and no expert opinion was filed. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. Petitioner's counsel, John F. McHugh, stated he had no intention of seeking costs or fees. The decision was issued by Special Master Herbrina Sanders.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Rebecca DeRitis alleged that her son, B.D., developed Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis, Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome as a result of an MMR vaccination received on February 20, 2014. On January 4, 2018, Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition, conceding that she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that Petitioner failed to prove either a Table Injury or that the MMR vaccine actually caused B.D.'s alleged condition. The public decision states the medical records were insufficient to prove the claim and no expert opinion was filed. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof. Petitioner's counsel was John F. McHugh, and Respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00772-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-02-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/04/2018) regarding 19 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (azc) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00772-UNJ Document 20 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 4, 2018
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REBECCA DERITIS, * No. 17-772V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Measles,
* Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis,
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis
* (“PFAPA”) Syndrome.
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John F. McHugh, Law Office of John McHugh, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On June 12 10, 2017, Rebecca DeRitis (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10
to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that her son, B.D., suffered from Periodic Fever, Aphthous
Stomatitis, Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis (“PFAPA”) syndrome as a result of a Measles,
Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccination he received on February 20, 2014. Pet., ECF No. 1.
The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the
Program.
On January 4, 2018, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition. Mot.
Decision, ECF No. 17. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts
and science supporting [her] case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that[,] based upon what
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). 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.
Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent
subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

Case 1:17-vv-00772-UNJ Document 20 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 2
science has discovered to date, she will be unable to prove that her child is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Id. at 1. Respondent did not
object to Petitioner’s motion. Informal Comm., dated Jan. 4, 2018. Petitioner’s counsel further
averred that he “has no intention of seeking costs or fees” for this petition. Mot. Decision at 2.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that B.D.
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that B.D. 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 B.D.
suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that B.D.’s
alleged injury was caused by the MMR vaccine.
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, this
case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2