A.W. v. HHS - MMR, Type 1 diabetes, weight loss and abdominal pain (2020)

On September 27, 2017, A.W., a minor child, by her parent and natural guardian Amber Wilson, filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The petition alleged that A.W. suffered adverse reactions, including Type 1 diabetes, weight loss, and abdominal pain, as a result of receiving the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine on October 11, 2014, and September 15, 2015.

The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on May 22, 2018, recommending against compensation. Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr.

Francis W. Ruscetti on September 20, 2018.

In response, respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Noel Keith Maclaren and Dr.

Penelope A. Morel.

Petitioner later filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. Ruscetti.

The case was reassigned to Special Master Daniel T. Horner on June 5, 2019, and respondent subsequently filed supplemental expert reports.

On August 3, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable. Petitioner understood that dismissal would result in a judgment against them and that they would elect to file a civil action rather than accept the Vaccine Program judgment.

Respondent did not oppose the motion but reserved the right to question the good faith of the filing in response to any motion for attorneys' fees. Special Master Horner granted the motion to dismiss, finding that A.W.'s medical records did not support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and that petitioner's medical opinion was not persuasive, especially in light of respondent's competing expert reports.

The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that an injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine, requiring a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury, substantiated by medical records or opinion. The public decision does not describe the specific medical records, the details of the expert opinions, or the mechanism of causation alleged.

The case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly.