VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01112
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01112
Petitioner: M.A.M.
Filed: 2018-07-30
Decided: 2022-07-12
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2015-07-30
Condition: seizures and/or developmental delay
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Amanda Swint-Moore and Michael Moore, as parents and next friends of their minor child M.A.M., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 30, 2018. They alleged that M.A.M. developed seizures and/or developmental delay as a result of receiving the DTaP, HiB, and PCV vaccines on July 30, 2015. The petitioners stated that they sincerely believed M.A.M.'s injury was vaccine-related but acknowledged that they were unable to obtain an expert to support their claim, despite a diligent search. Recognizing that without an expert report they could not prove entitlement to compensation, they filed a motion for a voluntary dismissal on June 24, 2022. The respondent did not object to the motion. Special Master Herbrina Sanders noted that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury," nor did it contain persuasive evidence that M.A.M.'s alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by the vaccinations. The Special Master further stated that under the Act, petitions cannot be based solely on claims alone but must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. In this case, the medical records were insufficient to prove the claim by preponderant evidence, and no supportive opinion on causation from an expert witness had been filed. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that M.A.M. developed seizures and/or developmental delay as a result of receiving DTaP, HiB, and PCV vaccines on July 30, 2015. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or any expert testimony regarding causation. Petitioners stated they were unable to obtain an expert to support their claim, acknowledging that without an expert report, they could not prove entitlement. The Special Master found that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" or persuasive evidence that the alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by the vaccinations. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, as the petition was not supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion on causation. Petitioners were represented by Forrest E. Jackson, and Respondent was represented by Debra A. Filteau Begley. Special Master Herbrina Sanders issued the dismissal decision on July 12, 2022.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01112-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/27/2022) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master - Dismissal. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (arm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01112-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: June 27, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMANDA SWINT-MOORE and * No. 18-1112V
MICHAEL MOORE, as Parents and Next *
Friends of M.A.M., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
* Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Diphtheria-
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”);
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Haemophilus Influenza Type B (“HiB”);
* Pneumococcal Conjugate (“PCV”) Vaccines;
* DYRK1A Mutation; Seizures; Developmental
Respondent. * Delay
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Forrest E. Jackson, Jackson Law Firm, PLLC, Chattanooga, TN, for Petitioners.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DISMISSAL1
On July 30, 2018, Amanda Swint-Moore and Michael Moore (“Petitioners”) filed a petition
for compensation on behalf of a minor child, M.A.M. under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program2 (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012).
Petitioners alleged that M.A.M. developed, or suffered a significant aggravation of, seizures and/or
developmental delay as a result of the haemophilus influenza type B (“HiB”), pneumococcal
conjugate (“PCV”), and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccines she received on
July 30, 2015. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show
entitlement to an award under the Program.
On June 24, 2022, Petitioners filed a motion for a decision voluntarily dismissing their
petition. ECF No. 39. In their motion, Petitioners stated that “[a]lthough [they] continue to
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.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (“the Vaccine Act”
or “Act”). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent
subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-01112-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2
sincerely believe that M.A.M.’s injury is vaccine-related, they acknowledge that, despite a diligent
search, they are not able to obtain an expert [] to support the claim.” Id. ¶ 1. They continued that
“Petitioners acknowledge that without an expert report, they will not be able to prove that M.A.M.
is entitled to compensation” in the Program. Id. Petitioners indicated that “[i]n these circumstances,
[] to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court,
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. ¶ 2. Respondent indicated no objection to Petitioners’
motion. Id. ¶ 4.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioners must prove either (1) that M.A.M.
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 evidence that M.A.M.
suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that M.A.M.’s
alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by her July 30, 2015 vaccinations.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioners’ claim
by preponderant evidence, and at this time, Petitioners have not filed a supportive opinion on
causation from an expert witness. Therefore, this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
3 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