VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01873
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01873
Petitioner: KATHLEEN ALMODOVA, as parent and natural guardian of A.A, a minor
Filed: 2019-12-11
Decided: 2021-12-23
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2018-03-23
Condition: immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kathleen Almodova, as the parent and natural guardian of a minor named A.A., filed a petition on December 11, 2019, alleging that A.A. developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) as a result of receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV), Tdap, and Menactra vaccines on March 23, 2018. The petitioner was unable to retain a hematologist expert to support causation-in-fact, which is a requirement for proving entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Consequently, on December 23, 2021, the petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste resources. The respondent did not object to the motion. Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey reviewed the record and, in light of the petitioner's motion and the inability to meet the statutory requirements for entitlement, found that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation. The case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, onset, or treatments related to A.A.'s alleged condition, nor does it name petitioner's counsel, respondent's counsel, or any experts. The decision was issued by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kathleen Almodova, as parent and natural guardian of A.A., alleged that A.A. developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) following vaccinations with HPV, Tdap, and Menactra on March 23, 2018. The theory of causation was not specified as "On-Table" or "Off-Table" in the provided text, but the petitioner's inability to retain a hematologist expert to support causation-in-fact was cited as the reason for dismissal. This inability meant the petitioner could not meet the statutory requirements for entitlement under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, specifically the requirement to prove causation. The case was dismissed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey on December 23, 2021, upon the petitioner's motion, with no objection from the respondent. No award was made. Petitioner's counsel was Amy A. Senerth of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Austin J. Egan of the United States Department of Justice.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01873-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/23/2021) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mca) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01873-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 23, 2021
* * * * * * * * * * *
KATHLEEN ALMODOVA, as parent * UNPUBLISHED
and natural guardian of A.A, a minor, *
* No. 19-1873V
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Dorsey
v. *
* Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissing Her Petition; Human
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Papillomavirus Vaccine; Tetanus-
* Diphtheria -Acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”)
Respondent. * Vaccine; Meningococcal Vaccine; Immune
* Thrombocytopenic Purpura (“ITP”).
* * * * * * * * * * *
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Austin J. Egan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On December 11, 2019, Kathleen Almodova (“petitioner”), as parent and natural guardian
of A.A., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”)2 alleging that as a result of human papillomavirus
(“HPV” or “Gardisil”), tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), and Menactra
(meningococcal) vaccines on March 23, 2018, A.A. developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura
(“ITP”). Petition at Preamble. 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-01873-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 2
On December 23, 2021, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that
“[p]etitioner is unable to retain a hematologist expert to support causation-in-fact, and will
therefore be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and
thus, “to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Her
Petition, filed Dec. 23, 2021, at ¶¶ 2-3 (ECF No. 46). 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 ¶ 4. 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 ¶ 6. Respondent stated via e-mail they do not object to
petitioner’s motion dismissing her petition.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that she 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 § 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 & Hum. 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