VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01631 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01631 Petitioner: Wendy Wright Filed: 2024-02-09 Decided: 2024-03-14 Vaccine: MMR Vaccination date: 2020-09-23 Condition: neurological injury Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Wendy Wright filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a neurological injury from an MMR vaccine received on September 23, 2020. The petition was filed on February 9, 2024. After an initial investigation, Ms. Wright's counsel determined that she would likely be unable to meet her burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation. Consequently, Ms. Wright filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, understanding that this would result in a judgment against her. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either an "on-Table" injury or an "off-Table" injury actually caused by a vaccine. For off-Table injuries, petitioners must satisfy the three prongs established in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., which include a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. Ms. Wright had not submitted evidence to establish these prongs, such as an expert report, and had admitted she could not establish entitlement. Therefore, the court granted her motion, dismissing the case for insufficient proof. Theory of causation field: Off-Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01631-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-14 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/9/2024) regarding 13 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01631-UNJ Document 22 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1631V UNPUBLISHED WENDY WRIGHT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: February 9, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.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 September 22, 2023, Wendy Wright filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a neurological injury from a MMR vaccine she received on September 23, 2020. ECF No. 1. On January 24, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition. ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. Relevant Procedural History Petitioner only filed an affidavit with the petition.3 ECF No. 1. The PAR Initial Order required Petitioner to file statutorily required medical records and other supporting documentation. ECF No. 5. Petitioner filed some medical records. ECF Nos. 6-8. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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). 3 Petitioner’s counsel stated that he had been retained nine days earlier, that the investigation into Petitioner’s injury had just begun, and that he had filed the petition to ensure that the statute of limitations period would not lapse. ECF No. 1 at 1 n. 1. Case 1:23-vv-01631-UNJ Document 22 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 2 On January 24, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition stating that “after an investigation of the facts and science supporting her case, Petitioner feels at this juncture that she will likely be unable to meet her burden of proof and establish that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” ECF No. 12 at 1. Petitioner understands that dismissal of her petition would result in a judgment against her and end all her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 2. Grounds for Dismissal To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered an “on-Table” injury – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of the listed vaccines within the applicable time frames, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury not listed the Table or outside the applicable time frames, an “off-Table” injury, that was actually caused by a listed vaccine. See §§ 300aa—13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner alleged an off-Table injury, i.e., that a neurological injury was actually caused by the MMR 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 an off-Table injury, 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 any evidence to establish the Althen prongs, such as an expert report proposing a medical theory. Moreover, Petitioner has admitted that she will not be able to establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01631-cl-extra-10735925 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269335 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1631V UNPUBLISHED WENDY WRIGHT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: February 9, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 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 September 22, 2023, Wendy Wright filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a neurological injury from a MMR vaccine she received on September 23, 2020. ECF No. 1. On January 24, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition. ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. Relevant Procedural History Petitioner only filed an affidavit with the petition.3 ECF No. 1. The PAR Initial Order required Petitioner to file statutorily required medical records and other supporting documentation. ECF No. 5. Petitioner filed some medical records. ECF Nos. 6-8. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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). 3 Petitioner’s counsel stated that he had been retained nine days earlier, that the investigation into Petitioner’s injury had just begun, and that he had filed the petition to ensure that the statute of limitations period would not lapse. ECF No. 1 at 1 n. 1. On January 24, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition stating that “after an investigation of the facts and science supporting her case, Petitioner feels at this juncture that she will likely be unable to meet her burden of proof and establish that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” ECF No. 12 at 1. Petitioner understands that dismissal of her petition would result in a judgment against her and end all her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 2. Grounds for Dismissal To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered an “on-Table” injury – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of the listed vaccines within the applicable time frames, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury not listed the Table or outside the applicable time frames, an “off-Table” injury, that was actually caused by a listed vaccine. See §§ 300aa—13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner alleged an off-Table injury, i.e., that a neurological injury was actually caused by the MMR 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 an off-Table injury, 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 any evidence to establish the Althen prongs, such as an expert report proposing a medical theory. Moreover, Petitioner has admitted that she will not be able to establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 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