VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01500
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01500
Petitioner: Kayla Carrillo
Filed: 2017-10-12
Decided: 2020-08-04
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2014-10-21
Condition: severe adverse reaction
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 12, 2017, Marlena Carrillo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of her then-minor daughter, Kayla Carrillo. The petition alleged that Kayla suffered a severe adverse reaction to her second dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, which she received on October 21, 2014. The respondent in the case is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On July 31, 2020, the petitioner filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her own petition. In the motion, the petitioner stated her intention to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party lawsuit directly against the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, in district court. The petitioner clarified that this decision was a strategic choice to enable her to reject a judgment and opt out, and did not reflect a lack of belief in the merits of her claim or that her injuries were not a result of Gardasil. The respondent did not object to the motion. The Special Master, Herbrina Sanders, noted that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" and that entitlement based on causation in fact was not shown. Given the petitioner's motion, further review was deemed unwarranted. The Special Master ordered the case dismissed, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific adverse reaction, onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kayla Carrillo, a minor, received the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) on October 21, 2014. A petition was filed on October 12, 2017, alleging a severe adverse reaction. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss her petition, stating a desire to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party lawsuit against Merck. The respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" and that entitlement based on causation in fact was not shown. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the specific adverse reaction alleged. The case was dismissed based on the petitioner's motion to opt out. Attorneys for the petitioner were Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, and for the respondent was Lara Englund of the United States Department of Justice. The decision date was August 4, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01500-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/04/2020) regarding 70 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (arm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01500-UNJ Document 76 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 4, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KAYLA CARRILLO, *
* No. 17-1500V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“HPV” or Gardasil); Adverse Reaction
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Lara Englund, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DISMISSAL1
On October 12, 2017, Marlena Carrillo filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her
then-minor daughter, Kayla Carrillo (“Petitioner”), under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012).
Petitioner alleged that she suffered a severe adverse reaction to the second human papillomavirus
(“HPV” or Gardasil) vaccination she received on October 21, 2014. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
On July 31, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 69. In her motion, Petitioner indicated “[she] has made the choice that she would
like to opt out of the Vaccine Program in advance of the Court ruling on entitlement…[and] wishes
to pursue a third-party action in district court against Merck directly.” Id. at 2. She continued,
“[t]his choice should not be viewed in any way that Petitioner does not believe in the merits of her
claim or that her injuries are not a result of Gardasil…[she] simply needs a judgment so that she
may reject said judgment and submit her election to opt out.” Id. Respondent had no objection to
Petitioner’s motion. Id.
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 I
agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be
deleted from public access.

Case 1:17-vv-01500-UNJ Document 76 Filed 08/14/20 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.” At this time, the information in the record, however, does not show
entitlement to an award based on causation in fact. Further, a closer review of the record is not
warranted in light of Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition. Therefore, this case
must be dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2 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