VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01769 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01769 Petitioner: Jayden Sumrall Filed: 2017-11-13 Decided: 2022-12-28 Vaccine: HPV Vaccination date: 2013-12-03 Condition: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, arthritis, and reoccurring headaches Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Jayden Sumrall filed a petition on November 13, 2017, alleging that he suffered from postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), arthritis, and recurring headaches as a result of receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on December 3, 2013, November 18, 2014, and January 20, 2016. The case caption was amended on May 5, 2022, to reflect that Jayden Sumrall had reached the age of majority. The petitioner alleged an off-Table injury and was required to prove causation-in-fact. Although the petitioner filed an expert report, the court found insufficient proof to satisfy the Althen criteria for causation. On December 7, 2022, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss his petition, understanding that this would result in a judgment against him and end his rights in the Vaccine Program. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition, finding that the information in the record did not establish entitlement to compensation. Theory of causation field: Off-Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01769-1 Date issued/filed: 2022-12-28 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/08/2022) regarding 83 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:17-vv-01769-UNJ Document 85 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 2 The United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 8, 2022 * * * * * * * * * * * * * Unpublished JAYDEN SUMRALL, * * No. 17-1769V Petitioner, * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal Decision; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Insufficient Proof. * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark T. Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner. Debra A. Begley, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DISMISSAL DECISION1 On November 13, 2017, Jayden Sumrall2 (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.3 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine (“HPV”) vaccines on December 3, 2013, November 18, 2014, and January 20, 2016, he suffered from postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”), arthritis, and reoccurring headaches. Id. at Preamble. The information in the record does not establish entitlement to compensation. On December 7, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition. Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet. Mot.”) (ECF No. 82). Petitioner states that he “understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing the petition will result in a judgment against him,” and that he has “been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The case was originally filed on behalf of petitioner when he was a minor, but on May 5, 2022, the case caption was amended when petitioner reached the age of majority. 3 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Case 1:17-vv-01769-UNJ Document 85 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 2 Pet. Mot. at 1. Additionally, petitioner understand that he may apply for costs and fees once his case is dismissed and that respondent reserves the right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), to question the good faith and reasonable basis of his claim and to oppose, if appropriate. Id. Further, petitioner states that he intends to protect his rights to file a civil action in the future. Id. To received compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. §§13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioner was alleging an off-Table injury therefore must demonstrate that the covered vaccine he received caused her alleged vaccine- related injury. To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Even though petitioner filed an expert report to support his claim, there is insufficient proof to satisfy the Althen criteria. Thus, the information in the record indicates that there is insufficient evidence presented at this time to justify an award. Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion requesting a decision dismissing his petition, a further investigation is unwarranted. As such, the petition is hereby, DISMISSED. Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition is GRANTED and the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 4 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2