VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01090 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01090 Petitioner: Brandi Rose Wilson Filed: 2021-03-18 Decided: 2021-04-22 Vaccine: Covid-19 vaccine Vaccination date: 2021-01-09 Condition: chest pain and inflammation Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Brandi Rose Wilson filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered adverse symptoms, including chest pain and inflammation, as a result of receiving two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine, with the first administered on January 9, 2021. The court dismissed the petition because the Covid-19 vaccine was not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table at that time, and therefore, the program could not provide compensation for injuries resulting from it. The decision noted that the petitioner could potentially re-file her claim in the future if the Covid-19 vaccine were added to the Table, referencing the program's 'lookback' provision. The court explained the process for adding vaccines to the Table, which involves designation by the CDC and enactment of an excise tax by Congress. As the claim did not meet the statutory requirement of being a Table injury, it was dismissed without prejudice to refiling should the vaccine be added to the Table. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01090-0 Date issued/filed: 2021-06-09 Pages: 3 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/22/2021) regarding 8 DECISION of Special Master, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made; petitioner served via U.S. mail. (dls) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01090-UNJ Document 10 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 3 REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION JUN 9 2021 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 3Jn tbe Wniteb $>tates '!Court of jfe beral '!Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1090V (Not to be Published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BRANDI ROSE WILSON, * * * Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, * * Dated: April 22, 2021 * V. * * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Brandi Rose Wilson, Shawnee, KS, pro se Petitioner. Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1 On March 18, 2021, Brandi Rose Wilson filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Prograi:n"f Ms. Wilson alleged she suffered adverse symptoms, including chest pain and inflammation, as a result of receiving two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine, with the first administered on January 9, 2021. See generally 1 Although this Decision has been formally designated "not to be published," it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision's inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction "of any infonnation 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 l 8(b ). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10-34 (2012)) (hereinafter "Vaccine Act" or "the Act"). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Case 1:21-vv-01090-UNJ Document 10 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 3 Petition (ECF No. 1) . A status conference was held on March 31, 2021, at which time I explained to Ms. Wilson that her claim suffered from procedural deficiencies and could not proceed as filed. See Docket Entry, dated Mar. 31, 2021. As discussed at the March status conference, to be entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"). See§ 1 l(c)(l)(A). Vaccines are added to this Table only after two steps occur. First, compensation in the Program can only awarded to individuals "who have been injured by vaccines routinely administered to children." H.R. Rep. 99-908, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344 at 3. Thus, the vaccine at issue must be designated by the Centers for Disease Control as appropriate for children or pregnant women (even if it is also administered to adults). Second, an excise tax must be enacted by Congress on each vaccine listed on the Table to provide funds for compensation for possible injury resulting from a vaccine. The date the tax is enacted is the date a vaccine becomes the basis for a claim in the Vaccine Program. See 26 U.S.C. § 4131(a); see also Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. No. 103-66, § 13632(a)(3), 107 Stat. 312 (1993). The Covid-19 vaccine does not yet appear on the Table, and is therefore not covered by the Vaccine Program. Petitioner therefore cannot show that she "received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table." Section 1 l(c)(l)(A). As a result, the petition must be dismissed. See, e.g., Danberry v. Sec '.Y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0778V, 2020 WL 6375330 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28, 2020) ( dismissing a claim seeking compensation for injuries incurred after receiving Pneumovax-23 and Shingrix-two vaccines that are not set forth in the Table). I also noted to Petitioner that despite my obligation to dismiss the claim at this time, it is foreseeable that the Covid-19 vaccine will (in some form and at some time in the future) be added to the Table. If so, it is possible that Petitioner would be able to re-file her claim under the Act's "lookback" provision. Section 16(b)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner should be prepared to so act when and if addition of the vaccine occurs. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01090-UNJ Document 10 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for the aforementioned reasons, the Petition is dismissed. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~~~ ✓ Brian H~o rcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 1 l(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment ifUointly or separately) they file notices renouncing their right to seek review. 3