Mikayla Whitfield v. HHS - Meningococcal, reoccurring skin abscess, and a rare skin cancer cell, severe persistent headache, unidentified fallopian tube reoccurring mass/tumors (2021)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Mikayla Whitfield, a minor at the time, received meningococcal vaccines on April 29, 2016, and again on March 16, 2017. She filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that these vaccines caused her to suffer from recurring skin abscesses, a rare skin cancer cell, severe persistent headaches, and unidentified recurring masses or tumors in her fallopian tubes.
The case proceeded as an off-Table claim, requiring Ms. Whitfield to prove causation.
She submitted medical records detailing various ailments, including skin conditions, headaches, and ovarian cysts that led to surgery. However, she failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as expert medical opinions, to establish a causal link between the meningococcal vaccines and her alleged injuries.
The court noted that her own assertions and limited notes from treating physicians did not meet the legal standard for proving causation. The Special Master denied her petition, and this decision was upheld on review.
The case was denied because Ms. Whitfield could not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccines caused her conditions.
Theory of causation
Petitioner alleged that the meningococcal vaccines caused her to suffer from recurring skin abscesses, a rare skin cancer cell, severe persistent headaches, and unidentified recurring masses or tumors in her fallopian tubes. The court found that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as expert medical opinions, to establish a causal link between the meningococcal vaccines and her alleged injuries. She did not present evidence of a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect showing the vaccination was the reason for the injury, or a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Her petition was denied because she could not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccines caused her conditions.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00559