VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00163
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00163
Petitioner: P.J.
Filed: 2019-01-30
Decided: 2022-07-29
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2016-04-26
Condition: thrombocytopenia purpura
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Amy J. Johnson, on behalf of her minor daughter P.J., filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on January 30, 2019. The petition alleged that P.J. suffered thrombocytopenia purpura as a result of her April 26, 2016 vaccinations, which included Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR), Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib), Hepatitis A (Hep A), and Pneumococcal (Prevnar 13) vaccines. P.J. was vaccinated on April 26, 2016. Within nine days of vaccination, she developed a rash and a low-grade fever, which was diagnosed as a viral exanthem. A photograph of this rash was filed, dated May 6, 2016. During an appointment for an ear infection on May 24, 2016, P.J.'s skin was noted as normal, with no lesions. In early June 2016, P.J. again developed a rash. On June 9, 2016, P.J. was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia due to a low platelet count. Petitioner's expert, hematologist Clinton F. Merrill, Jr., M.D., suggested that the onset of thrombocytopenia occurred with the first rash, referencing the May 6, 2016 photograph. However, Dr. Merrill noted that a complete blood count was not performed at that time, so the assertion could not be definitively proven. Respondent's expert, hematologist Cindy Neunert, M.D., agreed with the treating physician's diagnosis of the May 6, 2016 rash as a viral exanthem. Dr. Neunert also pointed out that the normal skin examination on May 24, 2016, was inconsistent with an earlier onset of thrombocytopenia, and suggested that the medical records indicated a separate rash onset in early June. After reviewing Dr. Neunert's report, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her petition on June 29, 2022. Special Master Daniel T. Horner granted the motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence. No compensation was awarded. Petitioner was represented by Mark Theodore Sadaka of Sadaka Associates, LLC, and respondent was represented by Sarah Black Rifkin of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that P.J. suffered thrombocytopenia purpura as a result of her April 26, 2016 MMR, Hib, Hep A, and Prevnar 13 vaccinations. Thrombocytopenic purpura is a Table Injury for the MMR vaccine if it occurs between 7 and 30 days following vaccination. P.J. developed a rash within nine days of vaccination, diagnosed as viral exanthem. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Clinton F. Merrill, Jr., suggested onset occurred with this first rash, but noted the lack of a complete blood count at that time. Respondent's expert, Dr. Cindy Neunert, agreed the initial rash was a viral exanthem and stated that P.J.'s normal skin exam on May 24, 2016, was inconsistent with an earlier onset of thrombocytopenia, suggesting a separate rash onset in early June. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or provide further details on the medical theory. Following review of the respondent's expert report, petitioner dismissed the petition. Special Master Daniel T. Horner dismissed the petition on July 29, 2022, finding petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. No award was made. Petitioner was represented by Mark Theodore Sadaka, and respondent by Sarah Black Rifkin.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00163-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/1/2022) regarding 58 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (tkp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00163-UNJ Document 63 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-163V
Filed: July 1, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
AMY J. JOHNSON, on behalf of P.J., a
Special Master Horner
minor,
Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR)
Petitioner,
Vaccine; Haemophilus
v.
Influenzae Type B (Hib)
vaccine; Hepatitis A (Hep A)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
Vaccine; Pneumococcal
HUMAN SERVICES,
(Prevnar 13) Vaccine;
thrombocytopenia purpura
Respondent.
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On January 30, 2019, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that her minor daughter
suffered thrombocytopenia purpura as a result of her April 26, 2016 Measles Mumps
Rubella (“MMR”), Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (“Hib”), Hepatitis A (“Hep A”), and
Pneumococcal (“Prevnar 13”) vaccinations. (ECF No. 1.) On January 21, 2020,
respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 26.)
On June 29, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition. (ECF
No. 57.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove by
preponderant evidence either (1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling
within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine and occurring
within the specified timeframe, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually
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 1:19-vv-00163-UNJ Document 63 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 2
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 & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Thrombocytopenic purpura is a Table Injury for the MMR vaccine if it occurs
between 7- and 30-days following vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a)(V).
In this case the vaccine(s) at issue were administered on April 26, 2016. (Ex. 4,
pp. 9-12, 26.) Within nine days, P.J. developed a rash in the context of a low-grade
fever. (Ex. 4, pp. 8-9.) The diagnosis was viral exanthem. (Ex. 14, p. 1.) A photograph
of the rash dated May 6, 2016, was also filed. (Ex. 15.) On May 24, 2016, P.J.
presented for care for an ear infection. (Ex. 5, p. 6.) Examination indicated the skin
was “normal, no lesions.” (Id.) Subsequently P.J. again developed a rash in early June.
(Ex. 4, pp. 2-4; Ex. 2, pp. 170-73.) P.J. was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia on June
9, 2016, in light of a low platelet count. (Ex. 2, p. 166.) Petitioner filed an expert report
by hematologist Clinton F. Merrill, Jr., M.D. (Ex. 38.) Dr. Merrill premised his opinion on
the May 6, 2016 photograph demonstrating onset of P.J.’s thrombocytopenia occurred
at the time of the first rash. He noted, however, that “[s]ince the treating physician
neglected at that time to perform a complete blood count, one cannot necessarily prove
this assertion.” (Ex. 38, p. 5.) Respondent filed an expert report by hematologist Cindy
Neunert, M.D. (Ex. A.) Among other issues discussed, Dr. Neunert agreed with the
treating physician that the May 6, 2016 rash was a viral exanthem. (Ex. A, p. 7.) She
further suggested that the medical records demonstrate a separate rash onset occurring
in early June and P.J.’s normal skin exam on May 24, 2016, would be inconsistent with
onset occurring on May 5, 2016. (Id.) After her expert’s review of Dr. Neunert’s report,
petitioner determined that she would dismiss her case. (ECF Nos. 54-57.)
Neither petitioner’s medical records nor her expert reports support her allegations
by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS
petitioner’s motion and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie
case of entitlement to compensation. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2