VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01008
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01008
Petitioner: Danessa Smith
Filed: 2018-07-13
Decided: 2019-12-31
Vaccine: Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2016-06-18
Condition: Lichen Planus
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 13, 2018, Danessa Smith filed a petition alleging that she suffered Lichen Planus as a result of receiving a Hepatitis B vaccination on June 18, 2016. The respondent filed a report recommending denial of compensation. Petitioner's counsel was Bridget Candace McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP. Respondent's counsel was Ryan Daniel Pyles of the U.S. Department of Justice. On September 23, 2019, petitioner indicated difficulty in filing an expert report and proposed to inform the court of her next steps, either finding an alternative to address issues or exiting the program. A further status report on November 6, 2019, indicated a proposal to file a letter from her treating physician. However, on December 6, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. Petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and end her rights in the Vaccine Program. Special Master Daniel T. Horner noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine. This requires demonstrating, by preponderant evidence, a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The Special Master found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and that petitioner's medical records did not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, nor did she file a supporting medical opinion from an expert. Accordingly, the Special Master granted the petitioner's motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case. The decision was issued on December 31, 2019.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Danessa Smith alleged that her Hepatitis B vaccination on June 18, 2016, caused Lichen Planus. The respondent recommended denial. Petitioner was unable to obtain an expert report and ultimately filed a motion to dismiss, stating she could not prove entitlement. Special Master Daniel T. Horner dismissed the petition, finding no "Table Injury" and insufficient evidence in the medical records to support causation. Petitioner did not file a medical opinion from an expert. The public decision does not describe the specific medical theory, proximate temporal relationship, or logical sequence of cause and effect presented by the petitioner, nor does it name any experts. The petition was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case. Attorneys for petitioner were Bridget Candace McCullough and for respondent was Ryan Daniel Pyles. Special Master was Daniel T. Horner. Decision date was December 31, 2019.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01008-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-12-31
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/06/2019) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (et) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/31/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1008V
Filed: December 6, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
DANESSA SMITH, Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v.
Dismissing Petition; Hep B
vaccine; Lichen Planus
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On July 13, 2018, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered Lichen Planus as
a result of her receipt of the Hepatitis B vaccination on June 18, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
On April 23, 2019, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that
compensation be denied. (ECF No. 21.)
On September 23, 2019, petitioner filed a status report indicating that petitioner
was unable to file an expert report and proposing to “inform the court how she wishes to
proceed (i.e. finding an alternative to address the issues outline in respondent’s Rule
4(c) report or voluntarily exiting the program).” (ECF No. 34.) On November 6, 2019,
petitioner filed a further status report, proposing to file a letter from her treating
physician to support her claim. (ECF No. 35.)
However, on December 6, 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision
Dismissing her Petition, stating that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 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), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.

Case 1:18-vv-01008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/31/19 Page 2 of 2
supporting her case has demonstrated to petitioner that she will be unable to prove that
she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” (ECF No. 36.) Petitioner
further stated that she “understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing
her petitioner will result in a judgment against her,” and “has been advised that such
judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” (Id.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy her
burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1)
a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the special master from
ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
Examination of the record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered
a “Table Injury.” Further, petitioner’s medical records do not support her allegations by
a preponderance of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert
in support of her allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s
Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to
establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review filed
pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment
herewith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2