VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00790
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00790
Petitioner: Jacqueline Stokes
Filed: 2020-06-29
Decided: 2023-06-05
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jacqueline Stokes filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on June 29, 2020. The respondent filed a Rule 4 Report recommending against compensation on March 23, 2021. However, Ms. Stokes died on March 31, 2021. Her counsel informed the court of her passing and sought time to determine how the family wished to proceed. A suggestion of death was filed with her death certificate. After conferring with family members, counsel reported that the next of kin decided not to set up an estate and not to proceed with the action. The court ordered that if no estate representative was substituted as petitioner within 90 days of service of the suggestion of death, the case would be dismissed. No motion for substitution was filed within the prescribed period. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition due to the lack of a proper petitioner to maintain the action, as required by Rule 25 of the Court of Federal Claims Rules.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00790-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-05
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/9/2023) regarding 43 DECISION of Special Master, Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (st) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00790-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-790V
Filed: May 9, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
JACQUELINE STOKES, Special Master Horner
Petitioner, Dismissal; Death of Petitioner; Lack of
v. Proper Petitioner; Court of Federal
Claim Rule 25
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for
petitioner
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent
DECISION1
Petitioner, Jacqueline Stokes, filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq., on June
29, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) She died on March 31, 2021. (ECF No. 36.) The petition is
now dismissed due to lack of a proper petitioner to maintain the action, as required by
Rule 25(a)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).
I. Procedural History
On March 23, 2021, respondent filed a Rule 4 Report recommending against
compensation. (ECF No. 25.) Petitioner was ordered to file an expert report supporting
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the document 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
1

Case 1:20-vv-00790-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 3
her claim; however, in the course of seeking additional time to secure such a report, Mr.
Sadaka informed the court on April 1, 2022, that he had become aware that petitioner
had passed away. (ECF No. 33.) Counsel asked for, and was permitted, time to
determine how the family wished to proceed. A suggestion of death was filed on August
1, 2022, along with a copy of petitioner’s death certificate confirming her death on
March 31, 2021. (ECF No. 36.)
Mr. Sadaka filed status reports indicating he had conferred with several family
members. (ECF Nos. 34, 37-38.) However, on December 7, 2022, Mr. Sadaka filed a
status report indicating that petitioner’s next of kin had ultimately decided not to set up
an estate and not to proceed with the instant action. (ECF No. 40.) Mr. Sadaka
requested a status conference to discuss the matter further. (Id.)
Following the status conference, I issued an order on January 5, 2023, advising
that if no estate representative was substituted as petitioner, then I intend to dismiss this
case pursuant to RCFC 25. (ECF No. 41.) I instructed Mr. Sadaka to serve the January
5, 2023 order, along with the previously-filed suggestion of death, upon the family
members referenced in his prior status reports and any other person he has reason to
understand may have standing to become petitioner’s estate representative. (Id. at 2.)
I ordered Mr. Sadaka to file a certificate of service, which he did on February 6, 2023.
(Id.; see also ECF No. 42.) I advised that if no motion to substitute is filed by an estate
representative within 90 days of the date of service of the statement noting petitioner’s
death, this case will be dismissed sua sponte. (ECF No. 41, p. 2.) The certificate of
service indicates that service was completed by U.S. First Class and Certified Mail on
January 18, 2023. (ECF No. 42.) There have been no subsequent filings in the case.
II. Legal Standard
The Vaccine Rules allow for claims to be pursued by estate representatives
(Vaccine Rule 2(c)) with documentation of their representative capacity, but do not have
any specific provisions to deal with the death of the petitioner during the pendency of an
action. Vaccine Rule 1(b) contemplates that some matters may be beyond the scope of
the Vaccine Rules and allows for practices that are consistent with the Vaccine Rules
and the purpose of the Vaccine Act. Vaccine Rule 1(c) allows for application of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to the extent they are consistent with the
Vaccine Rules.
RCFC 25(a) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the
court may order substitution of the proper party.” The rule further provides that if no
motion for substitution is made “within 90 days after service of a statement noting the
death, the action by the decedent must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Christner v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 145 Fed Cl. 633 (2019) (applying RCFC 25(a) to a case
brought pursuant to the Vaccine Act). As applied by the Court of Federal Claims in
Christner, service of the notice of death must be served on any would-be representative
2

Case 1:20-vv-00790-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 3 of 3
petitioner in the same manner as service is made pursuant to RCFC 5 before the 90-
day period for substitution can begin. Christner, 145 Fed. Cl. at 634-35.
III. Discussion
The certificate of service filed by Mr. Sadaka establishes that the period within
which to substitute a proper party under RCFC Rule 25(a) concluded on or about April
21, 2023. (ECF No. 42; RCFC 25(a); Vaccine Rule 19(c).) A motion for substitution was
not filed during that period. Accordingly, pursuant to RCFC 25(a)(1), the petition must
be dismissed due to the lack of a proper petitioner to maintain the action.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED. In the absence of a timely
filed motion for review pursuant to Vaccine Rule 23, the Clerk is directed to enter
judgment consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3