YAUNERIDGE v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: October 21, 2024

* * * * * * * * * * * * * GEORGE YAUNERIDGE, * and JULIA YAUNERIDGE, * on behalf of their minor son, J.Y. *

Petitioner, * No. 21-1789V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Marvin A. Firestone, Marvin Firestone, MD, JD and Associates, San Mateo, CA, for petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DISMISSAL DECISION1

On September 1, 2021, George Yauneridge and Julia Yauneridge, on behalf of their minor son, J.Y (“petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program).2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioners alleged that as a result of J.Y. receiving the HiB, hepatitis A, DTap, and varicella vaccines on August 17, 2020, he suffered from supraventricular tachycardia (“SVT”). Id. at Preamble.

On October 18, 2024, petitioners filed a motion to voluntary dismiss their petition pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a). Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet’r Mot.”) (ECF No. 27). Petitioners stated, “An investigation of the facts and science supporting has demonstrated to the petitioner[s] that they will be unable to prove that [they] are entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶ 1. “Additionally, experts have raised concerns about their ability to provide a more likely than not opinion on causation, especially in light of a more definitive diagnosis of Wolff-Parkinson-White (“WPW”) syndrome.” Id. To proceed any further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioners understand that a decision by the special master dismissing their petition will result in a judgment against them and that such judgment will end all of their rights in the Vaccine program. Id. at ¶ 3. Further, petitioners understand that they may apply for costs once their case is dismissed and judgment is entered against them. Id. at ¶ 4. Petitioners also understand that the respondent expressly reserves the right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(e) to question the good faith and reasonable basis of their claim and to oppose, if appropriate, their application for costs. Id. Petitioners also intend to protect their rights to file a civil action in the future, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300-21(a)(2), they intend to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against them and elect to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5.

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a “Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioners were not alleging a Table Injury and therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of her alleged injuries. To satisfy his burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(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 a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may not award compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petitioner must support the claim with either medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to establish entitlement and petitioner has not presented an expert opinion to support a finding of vaccine causation under Althen.

Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master