Jose A. Inoa v. HHS - COVID-19, various injuries (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Jose A. Inoa filed a petition on October 1, 2024, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for various injuries he alleged resulted from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine on April 13, 2021.
The petition was filed pro se by Mr. Inoa, with Heather L.
Pearlman of the U.S. Department of Justice representing the Respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The Special Master's decision, issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on October 4, 2024, and reissued for public availability on October 31, 2024, addressed the eligibility requirements for compensation under the Vaccine Act.
The court noted that to be eligible for compensation, a petitioner must have received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The decision explained that COVID-19 vaccines are not currently on the Table, and therefore, no petitioner can establish entitlement for injuries allegedly caused by them.
Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Inoa's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The public text does not describe the specific injuries alleged, the onset of symptoms, any medical tests performed, treatments received, or the mechanism of causation. The decision cites Danberry v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. as an example of a similar dismissal for a vaccine not on the Table.
The petition was dismissed, and judgment was to be entered accordingly unless a motion for review was filed.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Jose A. Inoa alleged various injuries from a COVID-19 vaccine received on April 13, 2021. The petition was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on October 4, 2024 (reissued October 31, 2024) for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, a prerequisite for establishing entitlement under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The public text does not specify the alleged injuries, onset, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or provide any expert testimony or a specific theory of causation beyond the general allegation of injury from the vaccine. The outcome was dismissal. Petitioner was represented pro se, and Respondent was represented by Heather L. Pearlman. The decision cited Danberry v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. as precedent.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01554