Twiehaus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: January 10, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWEN TWIEHAUS, on behalf of Q.W., *
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-862V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1 On August 5, 2022, Gwen Twiehaus (“Petitioner”), on behalf of Q.W., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018). 2 Petitioner alleged that Q.W. suffered chronic urticaria as a result of hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (“Hib”), pneumococcal conjugate, polio, rotavirus, and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccines Q.W. received on August 7, 2019. Amended Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 51).
On June 30, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report arguing against compensation. Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 2 (ECF No. 28). From October 2023 to March 2024, the parties filed expert reports. Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Exs.”) 18, 30; Resp. Exs. A-D.
The undersigned held a Rule 5 status conference on August 6, 2024. Rule 5 Order dated Aug. 6, 2024 (ECF No. 58). After a review of the expert reports and medical records, the undersigned was unable to deliver her preliminary thoughts and opinions. Id. at 2. Petitioner was directed to indicate how she would like to proceed. Id. at 3.
On December 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a status report. Pet. Status Rept., filed Dec. 11, 2024 (ECF No. 66). Petitioner reported that after a discussion with her expert, Petitioner’s continued pursuit of compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is not warranted, and as such, Petitioner intends to submit a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice with the Court. Id.
On January 8, 2025, Petitioner filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, indicating “[t]he parties hereby stipulate pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a) that this action shall be dismissed.” Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, filed Jan. 8, 2025 (ECF No. 70).
Under Vaccine Rule 21(a), which governs dismissal of a petition, “Petitioner may dismiss the petition without order of the special master or the court by filing: . . . (B) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.” Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(B). Unless stated otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. Vaccine Rule 21(a)(2). “A petition dismissed under this subdivision (a) will not result in a judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a).” Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3).
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(a), this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed that judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.