VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01563
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01563
Petitioner: Nicholas Politano
Filed: 2021-07-09
Decided: 2023-01-27
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2018-07-11
Condition: saline allergy
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Nicholas Politano filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 9, 2021, alleging he developed a saline allergy from a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine he received on July 11, 2018. The program requires petitioners to prove either a Table injury or an off-Table injury actually caused by a listed vaccine, supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion. For off-Table claims, petitioners must satisfy the three Althen prongs: a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. Politano filed a motion to dismiss his petition on January 25, 2023, stating he wished to pursue a third-party action against the vaccine manufacturer directly and did not believe he could prove entitlement to compensation within the Vaccine Program. He had not submitted sufficient evidence, such as an expert report, to establish the Althen prongs. Consequently, the Chief Special Master granted Politano's motion, dismissing the case for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01563-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/27/2023) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01563-UNJ Document 36 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1563V
UNPUBLISHED
NICHOLAS POLITANO,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 27, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Motion for decision; Dismissal;
HUMAN SERVICES, Human papillomavirus (“HPV”)
vaccine; saline allergy
Respondent.
Andrew D. Downing, Downing, Allison & Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On July 9, 2021, Nicholas Politano filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34,2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he developed a saline allergy from a human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine he received on July 11, 2018. ECF No. 1.
On January 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition. ECF No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED,
and this case is DISMISSED.
Petitioner only filed a declaration with the petition. The PAR Initial Order required
Petitioner to file additional statutorily required documents. ECF No. 5. On July 19, 2021,
Petitioner filed some medical records. ECF No. 6. Petitioner filed a Statement of
Completion on July 21, 2022. ECF No. 10.
On January 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition stating that:
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this
definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:21-vv-01563-UNJ Document 36 Filed 02/21/23 Page 2 of 2
[He] has made the choice that [he] would like to opt out of the Vaccine Program
in advance of a Court ruling on entitlement. He wishes to pursue a third-party
action in district court against Merck directly. This choice should not be viewed in
any way that Petitioner does not believe in the merits of his claim or that his
injuries are not a result of Gardasil.
ECF No. 29 at 1-2. However, Petitioner admitted that he “does not believe he will be
able to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2.
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
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 listed
vaccines, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury not on the Table that was actually
caused by a listed vaccine. See §§ 300aa—13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner alleged
a non-Table claim, i.e., that his saline allergy was actually caused by the HPV
vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive compensation based 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). For a
non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the
Federal Circuit in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2005):
“(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 proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.”
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the Althen prongs,
such as an expert report proposing a medical theory. Moreover, Petitioner admitted in
his motion for a decision that he will not be able to establish entitlement to
compensation.
Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine
Program. This case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, he must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
2