VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02124
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02124
Petitioner: C.L.
Filed: 2021-11-01
Decided: 2022-12-14
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2018-08-02
Condition: premature ovarian failure
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 1, 2021, Christina Lane filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her minor child, C.L., alleging that C.L. suffered premature ovarian failure as a result of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine received on August 2, 2018. The petition was filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner initially submitted some medical records but failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish entitlement, such as an expert report detailing a medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not contest the claim. On September 2, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating a desire to pursue a third-party action against the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, directly. Petitioner also admitted that she did not believe she could prove entitlement to compensation within the Vaccine Program. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical tests, or treatments C.L. experienced. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted the motion to dismiss the petition due to insufficient proof and the petitioner's admission of inability to establish entitlement. The case was dismissed on December 14, 2022. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing. Respondent counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged a non-Table claim that C.L.'s premature ovarian failure was actually caused by the HPV vaccination received on August 2, 2018. To establish entitlement for a non-Table claim, Petitioner needed to satisfy the three prongs established in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.: (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 failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish these prongs, such as an expert report proposing a medical theory. Petitioner admitted she would not be able to establish entitlement to compensation. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 14, 2022. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and respondent counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02124-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/18/2022) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02124-UNJ Document 24 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2124V
UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTINA LANE, on behalf of her
minor child, C.L., Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 18, 2022
v.
Motion for decision; Dismissal;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Human papillomavirus (“HPV”)
HUMAN SERVICES, vaccine; premature ovarian failure
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 November 1, 2021, Christina Lane filed a petition for compensation on behalf
of her minor child, C.L., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42
U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that C.L.
developed premature ovarian failure from a human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine C.L.
received on August 2, 2018. ECF No. 1.
On September 2, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition. ECF No. 15. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED,
and this case is DISMISSED.
Petitioner did not file any supporting documentation with the petition. The PAR
Initial Order required Petitioner to file these statutorily required documents. ECF No. 5.
On December 15, 2021, Petitioner filed one set of medical records. ECF No. 7.
Petitioner later filed more medical records on May 23, 2022. ECF No. 9. On July 26,
2022, Petitioner was granted an extension of time to submit the documents required by
the Initial Order. Petitioner did not file any additional documents subsequent to this
extension of time.
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-02124-UNJ Document 24 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 2
On September 2, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition stating that:
[She] has made the choice that she would like to opt out of the Vaccine Program
in advance of a Court ruling on entitlement. She 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 her claim or that [C.L’s]
injuries are not a result of Gardasil.
ECF No. 15 at 1-2. However, Petitioner admitted that she “does not believe she will be
able to prove that she 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 C.L.’s premature ovarian failure 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
her motion for a decision that she 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, she 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