VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00751
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00751
Petitioner: Maeson Derr
Filed: 2018-05-29
Decided: 2020-09-25
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2015-06-02
Condition: adverse reaction
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Maeson Derr, a minor, through her mother Georgia Derr, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 29, 2018. The petition alleged an adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (HPV or Gardasil) and Menactra vaccinations received on June 2, 2015. The specific nature of the adverse reaction was not detailed in the provided text. On August 10, 2020, Maeson Derr filed a motion to dismiss her petition. The motion stated that this decision was made to allow her to pursue a third-party action against Merck directly in district court, and that it should not be interpreted as a lack of belief in the claim's merits. The respondent did not object to the dismissal. 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. Consequently, the case was dismissed. The decision date was September 25, 2020. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, and respondent counsel was Adriana R. Teitel of the United States Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Maeson Derr, a minor, received HPV (Gardasil) and Menactra vaccinations on June 2, 2015. A petition was filed on May 29, 2018, alleging an adverse reaction. On August 10, 2020, Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition to pursue a third-party action against Merck, stating this was not an admission of lack of merit. Respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted the absence of evidence for a "Table Injury" and that causation-in-fact was not demonstrated in the record. The case was dismissed on September 25, 2020. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and respondent counsel was Adriana R. Teitel. The public decision does not describe the specific adverse reaction, onset, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, expert testimony, or the mechanism of injury.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00751-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-09-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/10/2020) regarding 56 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (arm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00751-UNJ Document 63 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 10, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MAESON DERR, *
* No. 18-751V
*
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.
Adriana R. Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DISMISSAL1
On May 29, 2018, Georgia Derr filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her then-
minor daughter, Maeson Derr (“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 an adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (“HPV” or Gardasil)
and Menactra vaccinations she received on June 2, 2015. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
On August 10, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 55. 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 1:18-vv-00751-UNJ Document 63 Filed 09/25/20 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