VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01403
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01403
Petitioner: Audrey Hinojosa Hernandez Sarni
Filed: 2019-09-12
Decided: 2021-04-21
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2016-09-15
Condition: adverse reaction to human papillomavirus (HPV/Gardasil) vaccine
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 12, 2019, Kevin Sarni filed a Vaccine Program petition as legal representative of Audrey Hinojosa Hernandez Sarni. The petition alleged that Audrey suffered an adverse reaction to a human papillomavirus (HPV/Gardasil) vaccination administered on September 15, 2016.

The case was dismissed before an entitlement ruling. On March 23, 2021, Kevin Sarni filed an unopposed motion asking for a dismissal decision because he wanted to opt out of the Vaccine Program before the court ruled on entitlement and pursue a third-party action in district court against Merck. The motion stated that the choice should not be read as a concession that the claim lacked merit or that Audrey's injuries were not related to Gardasil; instead, he needed a Vaccine Program judgment so he could reject it and submit an election to opt out. Respondent did not object.

Special Master Herbrina D. Sanders dismissed the petition on April 21, 2021. The decision stated that the record did not uncover evidence of a Table injury and that a closer review was not warranted in light of the motion to dismiss. No Vaccine Program compensation was awarded. Petitioner was represented by Andrew D. Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC.

Theory of causation field:
HPV/Gardasil vaccine (September 15, 2016) alleged to cause adverse reaction in Audrey Hinojosa Hernandez Sarni. DISMISSED/OPT-OUT. Kevin Sarni, legal representative, moved for dismissal to obtain a Vaccine Program judgment and opt out to pursue a third-party district court action against Merck; motion stated this was not a concession on merits. Respondent did not object. Special Master Herbrina D. Sanders dismissed April 21, 2021, noting no Table injury evidence uncovered and no closer review warranted due to motion. No Vaccine Program compensation. Attorney: Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01403-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-05-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/21/2021) regarding 36 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (arm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01403-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: April 21, 2021
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KEVIN SARNI, Legal Representative of * No. 19-1403V
AUDREY HINOJOSA HERNANDEZ *
SARNI, *
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“HPV” or Gardasil); Adverse Reaction
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Camille M. Collett, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On September 12, 2019, Kevin Sarni (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on
behalf of Audrey Hinojosa Hernandez Sarni (“Ms. Sarni”), under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012).
Petitioner alleged that Ms. Sarni suffered an adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (“HPV”
or Gardasil) vaccination she received on September 15, 2016. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
On March 23, 2021, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing his
petition. ECF No. 35. In his motion, Petitioner indicated “[he] has made the choice that he would
like to opt out of the Vaccine Program in advance of the Court ruling on entitlement . . . [and]
wishes to pursue a third[-]party action in district court against Merck directly.” Id. at 2. He
continued, “[t]his choice should not be viewed in any way that Petitioner does not believe in the
merits of his claim or that [Ms. Sarni’s] injuries are not a result of Gardasil . . . [he] simply needs
a judgment from the Vaccine Program so that he may reject said judgment and submit his election
to opt out.” Id. at 2–3. Respondent has no objection to Petitioner’s motion. Id. at 3.
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.

Case 1:19-vv-01403-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that Ms. Sarni
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that Ms. Sarni 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.” Further, a closer review of the record is not warranted in light
of Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing the petition. Therefore, this case must be
dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2 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