VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00262
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00262
Petitioner: Tristen Horton
Filed: 2019-02-15
Decided: 2021-11-18
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2017-09-20
Condition: aplastic anemia
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 15, 2019, Tristen Horton filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered from aplastic anemia due to a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine administered on September 20, 2017. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on February 13, 2020, recommending against compensation. The parties subsequently exchanged expert reports. On September 9, 2021, Tristen Horton filed a motion to dismiss his petition, stating a desire to opt out of the Vaccine Program to pursue a third-party action directly against Merck in district court. Horton indicated that this decision was not a reflection on the merits of his claim or a belief that his injuries were not vaccine-related, but rather a strategic choice. He also noted that, given the course of similar HPV vaccine cases within the Program, he did not anticipate prevailing on the merits. The petitioner stated that he needed a judgment from the Vaccine Program to formally reject it and submit his election to opt out. The respondent did not take a position on the motion. Special Master Herbrina Sanders reviewed the case and found no evidence that the petitioner suffered a "Table Injury" listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, onset, medical tests, or treatments related to the alleged aplastic anemia. Furthermore, the record did not demonstrate entitlement to an award by a preponderance of the evidence based on causation in fact. In light of the petitioner's motion for dismissal, further review of the record was deemed unnecessary. Consequently, the Special Master dismissed the case, and judgment was entered accordingly. The public decision does not name the petitioner's counsel or the respondent's counsel, nor does it detail any specific expert reports or their findings.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Tristen Horton alleged aplastic anemia caused by an HPV vaccine received on September 20, 2017. The respondent recommended against compensation. The parties exchanged expert reports. On September 9, 2021, Petitioner moved to dismiss his petition to opt out of the Vaccine Program and pursue a third-party action against Merck, stating this was a strategic decision and he did not anticipate prevailing in the Program. Special Master Herbrina Sanders found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient evidence of causation in fact to demonstrate entitlement to an award by a preponderance of the evidence. The public decision does not describe the alleged mechanism of injury, name any experts, or provide specific details regarding the clinical progression or medical evidence supporting causation. The case was dismissed based on the petitioner's motion. Attorneys involved were Andrew D. Downing for Petitioner and Lynn C. Schlie for Respondent. Special Master Sanders issued the decision on November 18, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00262-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/27/2021) regarding 58 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rig) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00262-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: October 27, 2021
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TRISTEN HORTON, * No. 19-262V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Human Papillomavirus
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“HPV”) Vaccine; Aplastic Anemia
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Lynn C. Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On February 15, 2019, Tristen Horton (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”).
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that he suffered from aplastic anemia due to
a human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine administered on September 20, 2017. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 15, ECF
No. 1. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report on February 13, 2020, recommending against
compensation, and the parties proceeded to file expert reports. See ECF Nos. 25, 34, 37, 42–44,
46, 54–55.
On September 9, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing his petition. ECF
No. 57. Petitioner stated that “he would like to opt out of the Vaccine Program” because “[h]e
wishes to pursue a third party action in district court against Merck directly.” Id. at 2. Petitioner
continued that “[t]his choice should not be viewed in any way that Petitioner does not believe in
the merits of his claim or that [his] injuries are not a result of [the HPV vaccine].” Id. He stated
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 1:19-vv-00262-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2
that he “needs a judgment from the Vaccine Program so that he may reject said judgment and
submit his election to opt out.” Id. He continued that “given the course of [HPV vaccine] cases
like Petitioner’s in the Vaccine Program, [he] also does not anticipate prevailing on the merits in
the Program on this case.” Id. Petitioner noted that he contacted Respondent regarding this motion
and that Respondent did not take a position. Id.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that he 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 by a preponderance of the evidence 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
his petition. Therefore, this case must be dismissed. 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