VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00622
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00622
Petitioner: A.B.
Filed: 2020-05-19
Decided: 2022-11-17
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2017-08-23
Condition: chronic headaches, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (“POTS”), and mast cell disease
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 19, 2020, Jennifer Bancroft, on behalf of A.B., filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.B. suffered from chronic headaches, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), and mast cell disease as a result of receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV, also referred to as Gardasil) on August 23, 2017. The petition also alleged that these conditions were either caused-in-fact by the vaccination or significantly aggravated by it. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the case and opined that it was not appropriate for compensation. The petitioner filed initial medical records on July 31, 2020. After the case was reassigned to Special Master Thomas L. Gowen on September 8, 2021, the respondent filed a status report on December 13, 2021, indicating an intent to defend the case and proposing deadlines for a Rule 4(c) report. The respondent submitted this report on January 12, 2022, stating their conclusion that the case was not appropriate for compensation. On the same day, Special Master Gowen ordered the petitioner to file an expert report and remaining medical records. The petitioner filed one updated medical record on February 11, 2022, and subsequently filed four unopposed motions for extensions of time to file an expert report. On November 14, 2022, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, acknowledging that this would result in a judgment against her and end her rights in the Vaccine Program. The petitioner stated her intention to reject the program judgment and file a civil action in the future. To receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine caused the injury in fact, which requires a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The petitioner did not allege a Table Injury and did not offer an opinion from a medical expert to support vaccine causation. The public decision does not describe the specific onset or symptoms of A.B.'s alleged conditions, nor does it detail any specific medical tests or treatments. The public decision does not name petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel. Therefore, the Special Master found the information in the record insufficient to justify an award of compensation. In light of the petitioner's motion, the petition was dismissed. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen granted the petitioner's motion for a decision dismissing the petition and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jennifer Bancroft, on behalf of A.B., alleged that the HPV vaccine administered on August 23, 2017, caused or aggravated chronic headaches, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), and mast cell disease. The petition was filed on May 19, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, opined that the case was not appropriate for compensation. The petitioner did not allege a "Table Injury" and failed to provide a medical expert opinion to support a theory of vaccine causation. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, intending to reject the program judgment and pursue a civil action. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen found the evidence insufficient to justify an award, as the petitioner did not meet the burden of proving causation-in-fact, which requires a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship, nor did she allege a Table Injury. The public decision does not specify the mechanism of injury, name any experts, or provide a breakdown of any potential award. The petition was dismissed on November 17, 2022, based on the petitioner's motion and insufficient proof. Petitioner's counsel was Mark Theodore Sadaka, and respondent's counsel was Katherine Carr Esposito.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00622-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-13
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/17/2022) regarding 38 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (slw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00622-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 3
the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: November 17, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * * Unpublished
JENNIFER BANCROFT, *
on behalf of A.B., *
* No. 20-622V
Petitioner, *
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal Decision;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Insufficient Proof.
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On May 19, 2020, Jennifer Bancroft (“petitioner”) on behalf of A.B., filed a petitioner
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner alleged that as a result of A.B. receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine (“HPV” or
“Gardasil”) on August 23, 2017, A.B. suffered from chronic headaches, Postural Orthostatic
Tachycardia Syndrome (“POTS”), and mast cell disease that were either “caused-in-fact” by the
above-stated vaccinations or, in the alternative, significantly aggravated by the above-stated
vaccination. Id. The information in the record does not establish entitlement to compensation.
Petitioner filed medical records on July 31, 2020. Petitioner’s (“Pet.”) Exhibits (“Ex.”)
1-21 (ECF Nos. 7-12). After petitioner filed her affidavit and additional medical records, the
case was reassigned to my docket on September 8, 2021. Notice of Reassignment (ECF No. 26).
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party:
(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that
includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
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.

Case 1:20-vv-00622-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 3
On December 13, 2021, respondent filed a status report indicating that he intended to
defend the case and proposed deadlines to submit his Rule 4(c)report. Respondent’s (“Resp.”)
Status Report (“Rept.”) (ECF No. 29). Respondent submitted the Rule 4(c) report on January 12,
2022, stating that the Division of Injury Compensation Programs at the Department of Health
and Human Services reviewed petitioner’s case and it was their opinion that their case “is not
appropriate for compensation.” Resp. Rept. at 2.
The same day I ordered petitioner to file an expert report and remaining medical records.
Scheduling Order, NON-PDF, January 12, 2022 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner filed one updated
medical record on February 11, 2022. Pet. Ex. 5 (ECF No. 32). Afterwards, petitioner filed four
unopposed motions for extension of time to file an expert report. See Pet.’s Motions for
Extensions of Time (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 36).
On November 14, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition.
Pet. Motion (“Mot.”). Petitioner understands “that a decision by the Special Master dismissing
her petition will result in judgment against her. Id. at 1. Further, petitioner has been advised that
such judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. Additionally, petitioner
understands that she may apply for attorneys’ fees and costs once her case is dismissed and that
respondent reserves the right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) to question good faith and
reasonable basis of her claim. Id. Petitioner states that she “does intend to protect her rights to
file a civil action in the future. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(a)(2), she intends to
reject the Vaccine Program judgment against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at 2.
To received compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of
proving either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a
specified period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine
Injury Table or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). Here, petitioner is not alleging a Table Injury, and therefore,
must demonstrate that the covered vaccine she received caused A.B.’s alleged vaccine-related
injury. 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). Under the Act, petitioners may
not be given a Program award based on the petitioners’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In
this case, petitioner did not offer an opinion from a medical expert to support vaccine causation.
Thus, the information in the record is insufficient to justify an award of compensation.
Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition, a further
investigation is unwarranted. As such, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing the petition is GRANTED and the petition
is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00622-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3