Edward Pratt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedNovember 21, 2013
Docket12-917V
StatusPublished

This text of Edward Pratt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Edward Pratt 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
Edward Pratt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2013).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-917V Filed: November 21, 2013

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * EDWARD PRATT, * TO BE PUBLISHED * * Special Master * Hamilton-Fieldman Petitioner, * * v. * * Decision on the Record, Dismissal of SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Claim for Insufficient Proof; Failure to AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Submit Expert Report; Influenza * Vaccine, Guillain-Barrè syndrome. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Lisa Watts, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DISMISSAL DECISION1

On December 28, 2012, Edward Pratt (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (“Program”). Petition (“Pet”) at 1, ECF No. 1.

1 Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in the case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347 § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). In the absence of such motion, the entire decision will be available to the public. Id.

1 After a review of the petition and supporting documents, Petitioner’s counsel filed a “Motion For A Decision On The Record,” stating that Petitioner would not be proffering the opinion of a medical expert in support of vaccine causation of the injury alleged, and consequently, had elected not to pursue a formal causation hearing with expert witness testimony. Pet’r’s Motion at 1, ECF No. 25.

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 28, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for vaccine compensation. Pet., ECF No. 1. The case was originally assigned to Chief Special Master Campbell-Smith. Notice, ECF No. 2. On January 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a “Motion For Subpoenae,” seeking the authority to subpoena Johns Hopkins Hospital and the medical facility of Cardinal Hill. Motion, ECF No. 4. That Motion was granted on January 7, 2013.

The Chief Special Master issued an Initial Order in this case on January 8, 2013, stating that Petitioner should file a status report regarding the status of record collection by March 8, 2013. Order, ECF No. 6. This Order stated that when all records had been filed, Petitioner was to file a Statement of Completion, and Respondent was to file a Status Report regarding record review within 30 days of the filing of Petitioner’s Statement of Completion, including a statement as to the expected filing date of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Id.

Counsel for Respondent, Lisa Watts made an appearance on January 9, 2013. Notice, ECF No. 8. Additionally, on January 9, 2013, Petitioner filed Exhibits one through ten on compact disc.3 Filing, ECF No. 7. On March 4, 2013, this case was reassigned to the undersigned pursuant to Vaccine Rule 3(d). Order, ECF No. 9.

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 (2006). 3 Submitted exhibits are labeled as follows: Exhibit 1-Vaccination Record, Exhibit 2- St. Mary’s Hospital, Exhibit 3- Montgomery County Hospital, Exhibit 4-Physician’s Now Urgent Care Center, Exhibit 5-Cabell Huntington Hospital Home Health, Exhibit 6- Huntington Physical Therapy, Exhibit 7-Gary Cremeans II, M.D., Exhibit 8-UK Medical Center, Exhibit 9-CMAC, Exhibit 10- Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington. 2 On March 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a Status Report regarding record collection, indicating that Petitioner had been collecting and reviewing medical records, and that Petitioner believed that outstanding records existed from one additional treating facility. Filing, ECF No. 10. On March 13, 2013, the undersigned issued a Scheduling Order, ordering Petitioner to file all medical records and a statement of completion on or before Tuesday May 7, 2013. Order, ECF No. 11.

On April 3, 2013, Petitioner filed Exhibits 11 and 12 on compact disc, designated as records from Cardinal Hill and Johns Hopkins Hospital. Notice, ECF No. 12. Petitioner filed his personal affidavit on April 3, 2013, designated as Exhibit 13. Filing, ECF No. 13. Petitioner filed a Statement of Completion on April 4, 2013. Statement, ECF No. 14.

The undersigned held a status conference on April 18, 2013, ordering Respondent’s counsel to file a status report, indicating whether this case would be postured for settlement or litigation. Order, Apr. 25, 2013, ECF No. 15. Respondent’s counsel filed a Rule 4(c) Report on May 23, 2013, accompanied by Exhibits A through C.4 Respondent’s counsel filed a Status Report on July 3, 2013, stating that “a settlement in this case w[ould] not be forthcoming.” Status Report, ECF No. 20.

On October 9, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to file a supportive medical expert report, and this Motion was granted the same day. Motion, ECF No. 23; Order, ECF No. 24. On November 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for Decision on the Record. Pet’r’s Motion, ECF No. 25.

II

FACTUAL HISTORY

At the time of vaccination, Petitioner was 35 years old with a past medical history of hyperlipidemia (high levels of lipids or lipoproteins in the blood). Pet’r’s Ex. 7 at 6. On October 7, 2011, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid. Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 1

Petitioner was seen at an urgent care center for chills/fever and diarrhea on December 13, 2011. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 2-4. During this visit, it was noted under “history of present illness,” that Petitioner had awakened with fever, sweats, and chills one week

4 Exhibits accompanying Respondent’s Report are as follows: Exhibit A-Vaccines and GBS, Exhibit B-Epidemiologic Evaluation of GBS and swine flu vaccine, Exhibit C- 2011 IOM Published Excerpt flu vaccine and GBS. 3 ago. Id. at 2. Petitioner reported fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and reduced appetite. Id. Rapid tests for influenza A and B, infectious mononucleosis, and strep throat were all negative. Id. at 3. Petitioner’s neurologic examination was within normal limits. Id. at 2. Diagnostic impressions were fever, fatigue/malaise, and diarrhea of presumed infectious origins. Id. at 3. He was prescribed Levaquin and advised to keep well- hydrated. Id.

On December 14, 2011, Petitioner was seen in the emergency room (“ER”) at Montgomery General Hospital. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 4-5. By history, it was noted that Petitioner had been “feeling sick for two weeks with n/v/d last week, and this week c/o chills, fevers, and sweats.” Id. at 19. The previous day, he was seen in urgent care and prescribed Levaquin, but he only took one pill because after taking the medication he began sweating. Id. Petitioner woke up on the morning of admission with generalized weakness, greater in the lower extremities. Id. He reported driving to the ER and falling in the parking lot because his legs were weak. Id. at 4.

On examination at the ER, significant weakness was observed in Petitioner’s lower extremities, and to a lesser extent, his upper extremities. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 5. Sensation was intact. Id.

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

Related

Moberly v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
592 F.3d 1315 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
De Bazan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
539 F.3d 1347 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
418 F.3d 1274 (Federal Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edward Pratt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-pratt-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-servi-uscfc-2013.