VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01199
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01199
Petitioner: Alexia Pena
Filed: 2021-04-13
Decided: 2025-08-21
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2019-10-29
Condition: chronic arthritis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Alexia Pena filed a petition alleging that she suffered from chronic arthritis as a result of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine she received on October 29, 2019. She worked to obtain her medical records and filed a statement of completion. The Secretary of Health and Human Services disputed that Ms. Pena had chronic arthritis, arguing instead that the records supported a diagnosis of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and that she could not proceed on a Table claim. The Secretary further argued that Ms. Pena had not met her burden under Althen for a causation-in-fact claim. The case was transferred to the Special Master, who ordered Ms. Pena to file an expert report. After extensions, Ms. Pena's counsel stated they had been unable to retain an expert. Ms. Pena then moved for a decision dismissing her petition, stating that an investigation demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury, supported by medical records or a physician's opinion. As Ms. Pena did not provide an expert report to support her claim of vaccine causation, there was insufficient evidence. Therefore, the case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01199-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-21
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/22/2025) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01199-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/21/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ALEXIA PENA, * No. 21-1199V
*
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: July 22, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for petitioner;
Alec Saxe, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Petitioner, Alexia Pena, filed a petition under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq., alleging that she suffered from a
Table Injury of chronic arthritis as a result of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
(“MMR”) vaccine she received on October 29, 2019. Pet., filed April 13, 2021.
Ms. Pena worked to obtain her medical records, and filed a statement of
completion on August 30, 2022.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) Report on May 22, 2023. The Secretary
disputed that Ms. Pena has chronic arthritis, arguing instead that the records
1 Because this Decision 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 Decision will be available to
anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14
days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted
on the website.
1

Case 1:21-vv-01199-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/21/25 Page 2 of 3
support a diagnosis of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, and that Ms. Pena could
not proceed on a Table claim. Resp’t’s Rep. at 15-16. The Secretary further
argued that Ms. Pena had not met her burden under Althen for a causation-in-fact
claim. Id. at 16-18.
The case was transferred to the undersigned on January 3, 2025. Ms. Pena
was ordered to file an expert report by April 18, 2025. Order, issued Jan. 14, 2025.
When she did not file a report, the deadline was extended, sua sponte, to May 5,
2025. Order, issued April 25, 2025. Ms. Pena was advised that the failure to
submit either a justified motion for enlargement of time or an expert’s report may
result in an order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.
On May 5, 2025, Ms. Pena moved for an additional 45 days to file her expert
report. Ms. Pena stated that, despite several attempts, counsel had not been able to
successfully retain an expert on petitioner’s behalf. Ms. Pena “request[ed] one
final extension of time to retain an expert and file a report.”
Ms. Pena was ordered to show cause as to why her case should not be
dismissed by July 11, 2025. Order, issued May 8, 2025. Mr. Pena was advised
that her response may include (a) reports from an expert or more than one expert,
(b) an argument regarding the persuasiveness of the evidence from counsel, or (c)
expert report(s) as well as an argument from counsel.
On July 11, 2025, Ms. Pena moved for a decision dismissing her petition.
Ms. Pena states that an investigation of the facts and science supporting her case
has demonstrated to her that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to
compensation, and that to proceed further would be unreasonable. Ms. Pena
understands that a decision dismissing the petition will result in a judgment against
her, and she reserves the right to elect to reject the judgment against her and file a
civil case.
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
2

Case 1:21-vv-01199-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/21/25 Page 3 of 3
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Ms. Pena filed medical records in support of her claim but did
not obtain a supportive report from an expert. Therefore, Ms. Pena wishes to have
her claim dismissed and judgment entered against her. Given Ms. Pena’s clear
intent that a judgment issue in this case, the undersigned will construe this as a
motion filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(b) (regarding involuntary
dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” Here, Ms. Pena did not provide an expert report to support
her claim that the MMR vaccine caused her condition. Therefore, there is
insufficient evidence to support a finding of vaccine-causation.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
3