VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00924
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00924
Petitioner: Jacqueline Robinson
Filed: 2018-06-27
Decided: 2020-06-03
Vaccine: Prevnar 13
Vaccination date: 2016-11-21
Condition: diffuse polyarthritis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jacqueline Robinson filed a petition on June 27, 2018, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from diffuse polyarthritis following the Prevnar 13 vaccine she received on November 21, 2016. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report contesting entitlement on May 31, 2019. The petitioner requested and received several extensions of time to file an expert report. However, no expert report was ever filed. On June 2, 2020, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, stating that she had determined she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation and that proceeding further would unnecessarily expend the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program. Special Master Katherine E. Oler noted that to receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. Furthermore, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. As there was insufficient evidence in the record for the petitioner to meet her burden of proof, the Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof, in accordance with the petitioner's motion. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly. The decision was issued on June 3, 2020, and is designated as unpublished but will be posted on the Court of Federal Claims' website.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jacqueline Robinson alleged diffuse polyarthritis following a Prevnar 13 vaccine administered on November 21, 2016. The respondent contested entitlement. Petitioner requested and was granted multiple extensions to file an expert report but never submitted one. Petitioner subsequently moved for dismissal, acknowledging an inability to prove entitlement. Special Master Katherine E. Oler dismissed the case for insufficient proof, citing the requirement for a Table Injury or proof of actual causation, supported by medical records or a competent medical expert's opinion, none of which were present in the record. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert opinions, or a breakdown of any potential award, as the case was dismissed prior to such considerations. Petitioner was represented by Renée J. Gentry, and Respondent was represented by Mary E. Holmes. The decision date was June 3, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00924-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/3/2020) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00924-UNJ Document 35 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-924V
(Unpublished)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
JACQUELINE ROBINSON,
*
* Special Master Katherine E. Oler
Petitioner, *
*
v. Filed: June 3, 2020
*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;
*
Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine Act.
*
Respondent.
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Renée J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington Univ. Law School, Washington, DC
for Petitioner.
Mary E. Holmes, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF1
On June 27, 2018, Jacqueline Robinson (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging that she suffered from diffuse
polyarthritis following the Prevnar 13 vaccine she received on November 21, 2016. Pet., ECF No.
1. Petitioners filed a statement of completion on July 23, 2018. ECF No. 11
On May 31, 2019, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report contesting Petitioner’s right to
damages and requesting the dismissal of the claim. ECF No. 19. On August 19, 2019, Petitioner
filed a status report requesting that she be allowed to file an expert report. ECF No. 21. I granted
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided
by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain
kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days
within which to request 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). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine
Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that
statutory prefix).

Case 1:18-vv-00924-UNJ Document 35 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 2
this request on August 20, 2019. See Non-PDF order of August 20, 2019. Petitioner asked for
several extensions of time to file this expert report. See ECF Nos. 25, 27 29, and 30. No report
was ever filed.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on June 2, 2020, indicating that Petitioner “has
determined that she will be unable to prove entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program
and to proceed further would unnecessarily expend the resources of the Court, the Respondent and
the Vaccine Program.” Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 31 at 2.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to her vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not
receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1).
In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden
of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and, in accordance with her motion, must be
dismissed. § 11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
2