VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01310 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01310 Petitioner: A.E.C. Filed: 2022-09-16 Decided: 2023-05-02 Vaccine: Vaccination date: 2019-12-02 Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Brooke Rivera, as the parent of A.E.C., a minor, filed a petition on September 16, 2022, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.E.C. received several vaccines on December 2, 2019, which resulted in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On April 28, 2023, the petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove A.E.C. was entitled to compensation. The petitioner understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending her rights in the Vaccine Program. The court noted that to be entitled to compensation, a petitioner must demonstrate a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine, but the petitioner affirmatively represented she could not meet the evidentiary standards. Consequently, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition for insufficient proof and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific vaccines administered, the petitioner's counsel, the respondent's counsel, the specific onset of symptoms, any medical tests performed, treatments received, or the specific mechanism of injury. The decision was originally filed on May 2, 2023. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Brooke Rivera, on behalf of minor A.E.C., alleged that vaccines received on December 2, 2019, resulted in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. The petitioner later moved to dismiss the petition, affirmatively representing that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, either through a Table Injury or actual causation by the vaccine. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition for insufficient proof. The public text does not specify the vaccines, the petitioner's counsel (Amber Diane Wilson), the respondent's counsel (Kyle Edward Pozza), the specific mechanism of injury, or any expert testimony. The outcome was a dismissal with judgment entered against the petitioner. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01310-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-05-30 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/02/2023) regarding 20 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01310-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1310V (not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BROOKE RIVERA, * Parent of A.E.C., a minor, * * Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, * * Dated: May 2, 2023 v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Amber Diane Wilson, Wilson Science Law, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1 On September 16, 2022, Brooke Rivera, parent of A.E.C., a minor, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that A.E.C.’s receipt of several vaccines on December 2, 2019, resulted in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Id. 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 1:22-vv-01310-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 2 On April 28, 2023, Petitioner moved for a Motion for Decision Dismissing her Petition, stating that “an investigation of the facts and science supporting has demonstrated to the Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that A.E.C. is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” (ECF No. 19). It would therefore be unreasonable to proceed and waste judicial resources in pursuit of the claim. Id. Respondent has not filed a Rule 4(c) Report in this case, making dismissal appropriate under Rule 21(a)(1)(A). However, Petitioner’s motion requests a decision (which will result in a judgment), so that she may she protect her rights to file a civil action in the future. She thus understands that a decision dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her, ending all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. Accordingly, a decision dismissing the petition is the appropriate form of relief. See Jodoin v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1651V, 2023 WL 1963865, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 13, 2023). 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. For these reasons, and in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s claim for compensation is therefore denied and this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 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