VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00651
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00651
Petitioner: E.H.
Filed: 2019-05-02
Decided: 2020-11-03
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-11-09
Condition: encephalopathy
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Shelley Haynes filed a claim on May 2, 2019, on behalf of her minor child, E.H., alleging that E.H. suffered encephalopathy resulting from a Tdap vaccination received on November 9, 2016. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on January 16, 2020, recommending against compensation. On October 6, 2020, the petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition. In the motion, the petitioner stated that an investigation by experts had demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable and a waste of resources for the court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program. The petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and would end her rights in the Vaccine Program, but noted she could apply for costs incurred after judgment was entered. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. Proving actual causation requires demonstrating a medical theory connecting the vaccination and the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The decision stated that E.H.'s medical records did not support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and no medical opinion from an expert was filed in support of the allegations. Therefore, Special Master Daniel T. Horner granted the petitioner's motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. The clerk of the court was directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Shelley Haynes filed a claim on behalf of minor E.H. alleging encephalopathy resulting from a Tdap vaccination on November 9, 2016. The public text does not describe the specific medical theory, logical sequence of cause and effect, or proximate temporal relationship presented by the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel was Shealene Priscilla Mancuso. Respondent's counsel was Voris Edward Johnson. Special Master Daniel T. Horner issued the decision on November 3, 2020. The petition was dismissed upon the petitioner's motion because experts demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation, and E.H.'s medical records did not support the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. No expert medical opinion was filed. The decision does not specify an award amount as the case was dismissed.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00651-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-11-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/7/2020) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (tkp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00651-UNJ Document 35 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-651V
Filed: October 7, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
SHELLEY HAYNES on behalf of E.H.,
Special Master Horner
a minor,
Petitioner, Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v.
Dismissing Petition; Tdap
Vaccine; Encephalopathy
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On May 2, 2019, petitioner filed a claim on behalf of her minor child under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that
her child suffered “encephalopathy resulting from the adverse effects of the tetanus,
diphtheria, and pertussis (“TDAP”) vaccination,” received on November 9, 2016. (ECF
No. 1.) On January 16, 2020, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against
compensation. (ECF No. 21.)
On October 6, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his
Petition.2 (ECF No. 29.) Petitioner indicated that her “investigation of the facts and
science by a number of experts has demonstrated to petitioner that she will be unable to
prove that she is entitled to compensation in the vaccine program,” and that “to proceed
further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
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.
2 Petitioner confirmed in this motion that respondent does not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 29, p. 2).

Case 1:19-vv-00651-UNJ Document 35 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2
respondent and Vaccine Program.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioner
understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a
judgment against her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his
rights in the Vaccine Program,” and that “[p]etitioner understands that she may apply for
costs she has incurred once her claim is dismissed and judgment is entered against
her.” (Id. at 1.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table
– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually 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). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from
ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
E.H.’s medical records do not support petitioner’s allegations by a
preponderance of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert in
support of her allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion
for Decision Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a
prima facie case of entitlement to compensation.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 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