VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00494
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00494
Petitioner: I.N.
Filed: 2019-04-03
Decided: 2020-06-16
Vaccine: MMRV
Vaccination date: 2016-04-06
Condition: non-epileptic seizures, tonic-clonic seizures, general seizures, anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anoxic brain injury, hypoxic brain injury, and depression allegedly following MMRV vaccine
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 3, 2019, Wendy Nelson, as the parent and natural guardian of an infant identified as I.N., filed a petition with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that I.N. received the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine on April 6, 2016, and subsequently suffered from non-epileptic seizures, tonic-clonic seizures, general seizures, anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anoxic brain injury, hypoxic brain injury, and depression. The public decision does not specify I.N.'s exact age at the time of vaccination, nor does it detail the vaccination visit, the date of the first symptom, any emergency medical care received, or the results of neurological or allergy evaluations, including EEG or imaging studies. Furthermore, the decision does not describe any treatments administered or present any expert opinions regarding the alleged injuries or their causation. The Special Master's decision noted that the information contained within the record did not demonstrate entitlement to compensation under the Program. On June 15, 2020, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her case. In this motion, she stated that she did not wish to provide further proof and believed she could not provide evidence that would meet the Vaccine Program's standards for entitlement. She further argued that continuing the proceedings would be unreasonable and could waste the resources of the court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program. The petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and would terminate her rights under the Vaccine Act, but she also stated her intention to preserve her right to file a civil action by rejecting the Vaccine Program judgment. On June 16, 2020, Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey reviewed the record, found the petitioner not entitled to compensation, and dismissed the case. No compensation was awarded. The petitioner was represented by Bruce W. Slane of the Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., and the respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the United States Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
MMRV vaccine administered April 6, 2016, to infant I.N., alleged to have caused non-epileptic seizures, tonic-clonic seizures, general seizures, anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anoxic brain injury, hypoxic brain injury, and depression. The case was dismissed on the petitioner's motion, with no compensation awarded. The public decision does not provide the infant's exact age or date of birth, the onset date of symptoms, a clinical timeline, details of emergency or hospital care, EEG, imaging, or laboratory findings, names of treating physicians or experts, or a biological mechanism for the alleged injuries. Petitioner stated she could not provide evidence meeting the Vaccine Program's entitlement standards. Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the record did not satisfy the threshold statutory requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). The decision was issued on June 16, 2020. Petitioner's attorney was Bruce W. Slane of the Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C.; respondent's attorney was Alexis B. Babcock.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00494-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/16/2020) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00494-UNJ Document 33 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: June 16, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WENDY NELSON, as parent and natural *
Guardian of an infant, I.N., * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 19-494V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Her Petition; Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and
* Varicella (“MMRV”) Vaccine; Seizures;
Respondent. * Anaphylaxis; Encephalopathy; Anoxic Brain
* Injury; Hypoxic Brain Injury; Depression.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bruce W. Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Alexis B.Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On April 3, 2019, Wendy Nelson (“petitioner”), as parent and natural guardian of infant,
I.N., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(“Vaccine Program”)2 alleging that I.N. suffered “non-epileptic seizures, tonic-clonic seizures,
general seizures, anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anoxic brain injury, hypoxic brain injury, and
depression” as a result of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (“MMRV”) vaccination
administered on April 6, 2016. Petition at 1. The information in the record, however, does not
show entitlement to an award under the Program.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned is required to post it 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),
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, upon review, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such
material from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual
section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:19-vv-00494-UNJ Document 33 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2
On June 15, 2020, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that she
“does not wish to provide further proof and/or cannot provide evidence that will meet the
standards of the Court to show entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and thus,
“to proceed any further would be unreasonable and may waste the resources of the Court, the
[r]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Her
Petition, filed June 15, 2020, at ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner states that she understands that a
decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against her, and that she has been
advised that such judgment will end all of her rights under the Vaccine Act. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner
states that she intends to protect her right to file a civil action and to elect to reject the Vaccine
Program judgment to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that I.N..
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that I.N. suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccination.
See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). The records submitted by petitioner show that she does not
meet the statutory requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) to establish entitlement to
compensation. The Federal Circuit has explained that the eligibility requirements in Section
11(c) are not mere pleading requirements or matters of proof at trial, but instead are “threshold
criteri[a] for seeking entry into the compensation program.” Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 93 F.3d 781, 785-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion and a review of the record, the undersigned
finds that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Thus, this case is dismissed. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
2