VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00298
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00298
Petitioner: Maria Kabayan
Filed: 2022-03-15
Decided: 2023-06-14
Vaccine: human papillomavirus vaccine
Vaccination date: 2019-05-20
Condition: Pemphigus Vulgaris
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Maria Kabayan filed a petition on March 15, 2022, alleging that she suffered from Pemphigus Vulgaris as a result of receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine on May 20, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report recommending that compensation was not appropriate. The petitioner was given a deadline to submit an expert report but instead filed a motion to dismiss her own claim. She stated that after investigating the facts and science, she determined she could not prove entitlement to compensation and that proceeding further would be unreasonable. The petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and would end her rights in the Vaccine Program, and she expressed a desire to file a civil action in the future. The Chief Special Master noted that dismissal at this stage is not uncommon and, in accordance with the petitioner's request, dismissed the case. The Clerk of the Court was ordered to enter judgment in accordance with the decision, as no motion for review was filed.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00298-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-10
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/14/2023) regarding 24 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00298-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-298V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
MARIA KABAYAN, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Dated: June 14, 2023
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessi C. Huff, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On March 15, 2022, Maria Kabayan filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”). 2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner
alleged that she suffered from Pemphigus Vulgaris as a result of receiving the human
papillomavirus vaccine on May 20, 2019. Id. On November 22, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report recommending that compensation was not appropriate in this matter. See Report, dated
Nov. 22, 2022 (ECF No. 16).
Petitioner had been provided a deadline for submission of an expert report, but has now
filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim. See Motion, dated June 12, 2023 (ECF No. 23)
(“Mot.”). Petitioner maintains that after an investigation of the facts and science supporting her
1 The parties may object to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 entire Decision will be available to the public
in its current form. 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 1:22-vv-00298-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 3
case, she has determined that she would be 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. Mot. at 1. Petitioner also
acknowledges 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 requests 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 & Hum. 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’s/plaintiff’s request and “on terms that the court
considers proper.” RCFC 41(a)(2).
To be entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that
he or she 1) suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to her vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See § 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). But Petitioner has affirmatively represented she cannot
meet the relevant evidentiary standards, and has not offered an expert report to support her claim
(a step I deemed critical to substantiating entitlement in this case).
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
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing
the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00298-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3