VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01646
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01646
Petitioner: R.S.
Filed: 2021-08-02
Decided: 2023-05-02
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 2019-08-08
Condition: unexplained infant death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that R.S. received several vaccines on August 8, 2019, suffered adverse symptoms, and died on August 9, 2019, from an unexplained infant death, characterized as SIDS-type. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on May 2, 2023, following Petitioner's motion to dismiss. Respondent had opposed compensation in a Rule 4(c) report filed December 22, 2022. Chief Special Master Corcoran noted that theories linking vaccines to SIDS have been routinely rejected in prior Program cases and ordered Petitioner to show cause for a distinguishable theory. Petitioner moved to dismiss after concluding she could not prove entitlement due to insufficient medical record or competent physician support. No award was made. Petitioner was represented by Anthony James Bucher of Gatlin Voelker, PLLC.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01646-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-30
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/02/2023) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01646-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1646V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SAVANNA STARKEY, on behalf of the *
estate of her minor son, R.S., *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, *
* Dated: May 2, 2023
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Anthony James Bucher, Gatlin Voelker, PLLC, Covington, KY, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On August 2, 2021, SaVanna Starkey (on behalf of her minor son, R.S.) filed a petition
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine
Program”).2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that R.S. suffered adverse symptoms and then died on
August 9, 2019, as a result of receiving several vaccines on August 8, 2019. Id.
The matter was originally assigned to another Special Master, and during this time
Petitioner continued to file additional medical records. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report was filed
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
information 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 18(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-01646-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3
on December 22, 2022, arguing that the case was not appropriate for compensation. See Report,
dated Dec. 22, 2022 (ECF No. 26). Shortly thereafter the case was transferred to me, and I held a
status conference on March 1, 2023. At that time, I explained to Petitioner that theories linking
vaccines to unexplained infant deaths (typically categorized as “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome”
if the child, as here, is less than a year old) have routinely been rejected in numerous prior Program
cases. ECF No. 30. I therefore ordered Petitioner to file a brief showing cause why the claim should
not be dismissed, inviting her to outline a causation theory distinguishable from what had been
addressed before. Id.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim. See Motion, dated
May 2, 2023 (ECF No. 31) (“Motion”). In it, Petitioner maintains that after an investigation of the
facts and science supporting her case, she has determined that she is unable to prove that she is
entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program, and that to proceed further would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, Respondent, and the Vaccine Program.
See Motion at 1. Petitioner also acknowledges in her motion that she understands a decision
dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her, and that such a judgment will end all
her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. And she has expressed a desire to exercise her rights to file
a civil action in the future pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2). Id. at 2.
ANALYSIS
The provisions under the Vaccine Rules for ending a case before a decision has been issued
are largely inapplicable herein. Petitioner may no longer avail herself of Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A),
which governs voluntary dismissals before service of the Rule 4(c) Report, and Respondent has
not stipulated to dismissal under Rule 21(a)(1)(B). In addition, even if the parties had so stipulated,
Petitioner seeks entry of a judgment, whereas Vaccine Rule 21(a) would only result in an “order
concluding proceedings.” Rule 21(a)(3).
Accordingly, the only remaining channel for the relief Petitioner’s request is a “motion
seeking dismissal”—a mechanism for ending cases that other claimants have used, either because
the claim appears unlikely to succeed, or simply because the petitioner prefers not to continue with
the claim, but seeks to terminate the action after the time to act under Rule 21 has passed. See, e.g.,
Goldie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1476V, 2019 WL 6045647, at *1 (Fed. Cl Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 11, 2019). Dismissal of Vaccine Program cases at this particular stage of the litigation
is not uncommon. Indeed, the rules of the Court of Federal Claims (which are properly applied
herein) permit dismissal of claims at a petitioner/plaintiff’s request and “on terms that the court
considers proper.” RCFC 41(a)(2).
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely
on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the
2

Case 1:21-vv-01646-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3
opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in
the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim cannot succeed
and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner’s case. 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.
s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
3