VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00005
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00005
Petitioner: E.T.B.
Filed: 2023-01-03
Decided: 2025-01-08
Vaccine: DTaP, hepatitis B, IPV, pneumococcal conjugate, Hib PRP-T conjugate, and rotavirus
Vaccination date: 2021-02-22
Condition: encephalopathy or encephalitis, anaphylaxis, vasovagal syncope, and death
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 3, 2023, Ifafunke Oladigbolu, the natural mother of the decedent E.T.B., and Eric Burton, the child's natural father, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They alleged that vaccines administered on February 22, 2021, caused a Table injury or, alternatively, an injury caused-in-fact, described as encephalopathy or encephalitis, anaphylaxis, vasovagal syncope, and death. The identified vaccines were DTaP, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus (IPV), pneumococcal conjugate, Hib PRP-T conjugate, and rotavirus. The public decision does not provide E.T.B.'s birth date, exact age at vaccination, date of death, immediate post-vaccination clinical course, autopsy details, or emergency-treatment narrative. It notes that the claim concerned an unexplained infant death and that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) was deemed a likely explanation in the respondent's Rule 4(c) report. At a status conference on November 19, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran informed the petitioners that theories linking vaccines to unexplained infant deaths, particularly when categorized as SIDS in children under one year old, had been repeatedly rejected in prior Vaccine Program cases. He set a deadline for the respondent's Rule 4(c) report and indicated that if SIDS proved relevant, the claim's viability would be at issue. On January 3, 2025, the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report arguing against compensation and confirming SIDS as a likely explanation for E.T.B.'s death. On the same day, the petitioners moved for a dismissal decision, stating that after investigating the facts and science, they could not prove entitlement and that further proceedings would be unreasonable and wasteful. The petitioners acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against them, ending their rights in the Vaccine Program, and expressed a desire to file a civil action in the future. Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the petition with prejudice on January 8, 2025, construing the motion as one for voluntary dismissal with entry of judgment under Vaccine Rule 21(b). He found insufficient evidence for the petitioners to meet their burden of proof, noting that compensation cannot be based solely on allegations without supporting medical records or a competent medical opinion. He cited the repeated rejection of SIDS causation theories in Vaccine Program decisions, referencing Boatmon and Sheller. No compensation was awarded. Petitioners were represented by Paul Adrian Green of the Law Office of Paul Green. Respondent was represented by Theodore Van Beek.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that DTaP, hepatitis B, IPV, pneumococcal conjugate, Hib PRP-T conjugate, and rotavirus vaccines administered on February 22, 2021, caused encephalopathy/encephalitis, anaphylaxis, vasovagal syncope, and death in minor E.T.B. The petition was DISMISSED with prejudice; no compensation was awarded. The public decision does not provide the decedent's date of birth, exact age at vaccination, date of death, immediate clinical timeline, autopsy findings, or emergency treatment details. Respondent's Rule 4(c) report identified SIDS as a likely explanation for the death. At a November 19, 2024 status conference, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran advised petitioners that theories linking vaccines to unexplained infant deaths or SIDS in children under one year old had been routinely rejected in prior Program cases. Petitioners moved on January 3, 2025, to dismiss, concluding they could not prove entitlement. The decision on January 8, 2025, found insufficient medical record or expert evidence to meet the petitioners' burden of proof and cited prior decisions (Boatmon, Sheller) rejecting SIDS/Triple Risk Model causation theories. Petitioners Ifafunke Oladigbolu and Eric Burton were represented by attorney Paul Adrian Green of the Law Office of Paul Green, Pasadena, CA. Respondent was represented by Theodore Van Beek.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00005-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-18
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/08/2025) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (af) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00005-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-5V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IFAFUNKE OLADIGBOLU, natural *
mother of decedent, and ERIC BURTON, *
natural father of decedent, E.T.B. * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioners, * Dated: January 8, 2025
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Adrian Green, Law Office of Paul Green, 1055 East Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, CA,
for Petitioners.
Theodore Van Beek, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On January 3, 2023, Ifafunke Oladigbolu, natural mother of decedent E.T.B., and Eric
Burton, E.T.B.’s father, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 (ECF No. 1). Petitioners alleged that E.T.B.
suffered a Table injury, or alternatively an injury caused-in-fact, of encephalopathy or encephalitis,
anaphylaxis, vasovagal syncope, and death, resulting from the adverse effects of DTAP, HBV,
IPV, pneumococcal conjugate, HIB PRP-T conjugate, and rotavirus vaccines he received on
February 22, 2021.
On November 19, 2024, I held a status conference. At that time, I explained to Petitioners
that theories linking vaccines to unexplained infant deaths (especially when categorized as
1 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 whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present 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 1:23-vv-00005-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 3
“Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (“SIDS”) if the child, as here, is less than a year old) have
routinely been rejected in numerous prior Program cases. I set a deadline for Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report, but noted that if SIDS proved to be a relevant consideration, the claim’s viability
would be at issue.
On January 3, 2025, Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) Report, arguing that the case was not
appropriate for compensation. See Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 29) (“Report”). The report confirms
that SIDS was deemed to be a likely explanation for E.T.B.’s death. Report at 2-4, 6. The same
day, Petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim. Motion to Dismiss, dated
January 3, 2025 (ECF No. 30) (“Mot.”). In it, Petitioners maintain that after an investigation of the
facts and science supporting their case, they have determined that they are unable to prove that
they are 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 Mot. at 1. Petitioners also acknowledge that they understand a decision dismissing their
petition will result in a judgment against them, and that such a judgment will end all their rights in
the Vaccine Program. Id. And they have expressed a desire to exercise their rights to file a civil
action in the future pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2). Id. at 2.
Petitioners’ motion invokes Vaccine Rule 21(a), which allows for voluntary dismissal
without an entry of judgement prior to the Rule 4(c) Report. But this motion was filed after
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Respondent has not stipulated to the dismissal. Thus,
Rule 21(a) does not apply. 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, I will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 21(b), which allows for voluntary dismissal with an entry of judgement.
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
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. Furthermore, this claim appears to allege a
SIDS injury. See Report at 6. Allegations of SIDS injuries have been repeatedly rejected in the
Program. See Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 138 Fed. Cl. 566, 571 (2018), aff’d, 941
F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Sheller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 121 F.4th 1301,
1308 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (explaining the “Triple Risk Model” of SIDS causation had been “rejected
on appeal as a viable causation theory on the merits under Althen factor one”) (emphasis in
original). For these reasons, Petitioner’s claim cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section
11(c)(1)(A).
2

Case 1:23-vv-00005-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/18/25 Page 3 of 3
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioners’ claim with prejudice for insufficient proof.
See Vaccine Rule 21(b). In the absence of a motion for review, the Clerk of the Court SHALL
ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3