Eads v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedOctober 24, 2019
Docket17-881
StatusPublished

This text of Eads v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Eads v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eads v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2019).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-881V Filed: June 25, 2019 (Not to be published)

************************* * JODI EADS, * * Petitioner, * Findings of Fact; Onset; * Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating v. * Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * *************************

Shealene Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Traci Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ONSET1

Oler, Special Master:

On June 28, 2017, Jodi Eads (“Ms. Eads” or “Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). The petition alleges that the influenza (“flu”) vaccination Ms. Eads

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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. Id. 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).

1 received on September 26, 2015 caused her to suffer from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Pet. at 1.

During the pendency of this matter, Petitioner submitted one affidavit that she authored, along with affidavits prepared by her husband, her daughters, several work associates, and her best friend, as well as other documentary evidence. The facts Petitioner presented in her affidavits relating to the onset of her medical symptoms differed from those documented in some of Petitioner’s medical records. When discrepancies exist between medical records and affidavits, “Vaccine Rules 3(b) and 8(c), and the principles of fairness that underlie them, counsel in favor of holding an evidentiary hearing.” Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006).

Accordingly, I held a hearing on March 6, 2019, by video teleconference (“VTC”) in Washington, DC, to determine the date of onset of Petitioner’s hand tingling and numbness. Ms. Shealene Mancuso appeared on behalf of Petitioner and Ms. Traci Patton appeared on behalf of Respondent. I heard testimony via VTC from Petitioner, her friend, Sherry McCullough, her supervisor, Sarah Wolfe, and her daughter, Chelsie Sharp.

After carefully considering the testimony of the witnesses, the medical records, affidavits, and documentary evidence, I find that Petitioner’s numbness and tingling in her hands began on approximately October 21, 2015.

I. Procedural History

On June 28, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition alleging that she suffered from CIDP as a result of a flu vaccine administered on September 26, 2015. Petition, ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed medical records on June 29, 2017. Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Petitioner filed several affidavits, including her own on June 29, 2017. Exs. 7, 8, 9, 10.

On March 21, 2018, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 15. Respondent states that Petitioner has not provided evidence that satisfies her burden of proof under Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005), specifically noting that none of Petitioner’s treating physicians attributed her CIDP to the flu vaccine. Resp’s Rept. at 8. Respondent further states that Petitioner has not shown a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccine and onset of symptoms. Id. While Petitioner contends her symptoms began in October 2015, “the medical records support a finding that the onset of her condition was either well before the vaccination, or, most likely, in December 2015, more than 10 weeks after the vaccination.” Id.

On February 1, 2019, Petitioner submitted a movie ticket from January 8, 2016 (Ex. 12), an affidavit from Amy Rumschlag (Ex. 13), an affidavit from Cindy Gallmeyer (Ex. 14), an affidavit from Sarah Wolfe (Ex. 15), an affidavit from Martha Pimentel (Ex. 16), an affidavit from Natasha Braun (Ex. 17), and an affidavit from Sherry McCullough (Ex. 18).

On February 21, 2019, Petitioner filed her husband’s hospital discharge summary. Ex. 19. On February 26 and 27, 2019, Petitioner filed staff development notes from her place of employment. Exs. 20, 21. On March 20, 2019, Petitioner filed additional medical records. Ex.

2 22.

I conducted a fact hearing on March 6, 2019 in Washington, DC. Petitioner filed several documents after the fact hearing, to include Dr. Gresla’s phone messages (Ex. 23), Facebook posts (Ex. 24), and family home visit supervision notes from September 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (Ex. 25). I held a status conference with the parties on May 30, 2019 to clarify that the date of the home visit in the family home visit supervision notes (Ex. 25 at 1). In order to address this issue, Petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit by Ms. Wolfe. Ex. 26. The parties indicated they had no further evidence to present during the status conference on May 30, 2019. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Petitioner’s Medical Records

Petitioner was born in 1970. She was 45 years old on September 26, 2015, when she received the allegedly causal flu vaccination in her left deltoid at Adams Memorial Hospital in Decatur, Indiana. Ex. 1 at 3-4.

A. Petitioner’s Medical History Prior to the Flu Vaccination

On August 21, 2015, Petitioner presented to her primary care physician, Dr. Gresla for fatigue and anxiety. Ex. 2 at 11. She had a medical history significant for elevated triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, fatigue, anxiety, hypothyroidism, and borderline diabetes. See Ex. 2 at 9. Ex. 3 at 65.

B. The Flu Vaccination and Petitioner’s Subsequent Medical History

After receiving her flu vaccination on September 26, 2015, Petitioner did not seek medical care until January 13, 2016. On this date, she presented to her primary care physician complaining of numbness and tingling. Ex. 2 at 15. The records from this visit state that “the numbness and tingling has been sudden and has been occurring for 3 weeks.” Id. Petitioner described the symptoms as occurring in her hands and feet, and that sometimes she has sharp shooting pains in her feet. Id. The records further indicate that “the numbness started around 8 months ago but has been worse since Dec. 2, 2015.” Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eads v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eads-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2019.