R.S. v. HHS - unexplained infant death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) (2023)

On August 2, 2021, SaVanna Starkey, on behalf of the estate of her minor son R.S., filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that R.S. received several vaccines on August 8, 2019, suffered adverse symptoms, and died on August 9, 2019.

Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on December 22, 2022, arguing that the case was not appropriate for compensation. The case was then transferred to Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran, who held a status conference on March 1, 2023. During the conference, Chief Special Master Corcoran explained that theories linking vaccines to unexplained infant deaths, typically categorized as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) when the child is less than one year old, have routinely been rejected in prior Vaccine Program cases.

He ordered Petitioner to file a brief showing cause why the claim should not be dismissed and invited her to identify a causation theory distinguishable from those previously addressed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim on May 2, 2023.

In her motion, Petitioner stated that after investigating the facts and science supporting her case, she determined she was unable to prove entitlement to compensation and that continuing the litigation would be unreasonable and waste the resources of the Court, Respondent, and the Vaccine Program. Petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending all her rights in the Vaccine Program, and expressed a desire to file a civil action in the future.

Chief Special Master Corcoran analyzed the situation, noting that the standard provisions for ending a case before a decision were inapplicable. He determined that the only remaining avenue was a motion seeking dismissal, which is permitted under the rules when a claim appears unlikely to succeed or the petitioner prefers not to continue after the time for voluntary dismissal has passed.

Chief Special Master Corcoran noted that under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must support their claim with either medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. He concluded that the record in this case contained insufficient evidence for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof and that the claim could not succeed.

Accordingly, Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the petition on May 2, 2023. No award was made.

Petitioner was represented by Anthony James Bucher of Gatlin Voelker, PLLC, and Respondent was represented by Katherine Carr Esposito of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The decision was not designated for publication but was posted on the Court of Federal Claims' website.