Ferguson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJanuary 5, 2022
Docket17-1737
StatusPublished

This text of Ferguson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Ferguson 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
Ferguson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2022).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 10, 2021

************************* APRIL FERGUSON, parent of J.F., * a minor, * PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 17-1737V * v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling on Entitlement; Tetanus-Diphtheria- AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; * Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine; Respondent. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Immune * Thrombocytopenia Purpura (“ITP”). *************************

Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 6, 2017, April Ferguson (“petitioner”), parent of J.F., a minor, 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. (2012). 2 Petitioner alleges that J.F.

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required 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 Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). All citations in this Ruling to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. suffered immune thrombocytopenia purpura (“ITP”) 3 as the result of a tetanus-diphtheria- acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), 4 meningococcal conjugate, and influenza (“flu”) 5 vaccinations administered on October 23, 2014. Petition at 1-2 (ECF No. 1); Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 2 at 1; Pet. Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Pet. Mot.”), filed June 14, 2021, at 1, 3, 11 (ECF No. 63). Respondent argued against compensation, stating that “this case is not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act.” Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 2 (ECF No. 13).

After carefully analyzing and weighing the evidence presented in this case in accordance with the applicable legal standards, the undersigned finds that petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that the Tdap vaccine caused J.F.’s ITP, satisfying petitioner’s burden of proof under Althen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation.

I. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

Diagnosis is not at issue. See Pet. Ex. 8 at 2-3; Resp. Ex. A at 2. The parties’ experts agree that the proper diagnosis is ITP. Pet. Ex. 8 at 2-3; Resp. Ex. A at 2. More specifically, J.F. has been diagnosed with “primary chronic autoimmune thrombocytopenia.” Resp. Ex. A at 2.

Petitioner does not allege a Table injury, and thus, petitioner must prove causation-in-fact by preponderant evidence. Petitioner alleges that “J.F. was a healthy child who developed ITP

3 Throughout the medical records, J.F.’s treating physicians refer to J.F.’s condition as idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura and immune thrombocytopenia purpura. The undersigned will refer to both as ITP throughout this Ruling. 4 Although the petition alleges J.F. received a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular-pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccination, J.F.’s medical records indicate J.F. received a Tdap vaccination. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 2 at 1. 5 The petition does not include J.F.’s flu vaccination on October 23, 2014; however, petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record and petitioner’s expert’s reports reference J.F.’s flu vaccination. Pet. Ex. 8 at 3; Pet. Ex. 11 at 1-2; Pet. Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Pet. Mot.”), filed June 14, 2021, at 1, 11 (ECF No. 63). Respondent’s expert also discusses the significance of J.F.’s flu vaccination, and cites to medical literature regarding the flu vaccine. Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Ex. A at 2-3. Further, respondent’s Response to petitioner’s Motion discusses the flu vaccine. Resp. Response to Pet. Mot. (“Resp. Response”), filed July 19, 2021, at 13 (ECF No. 66). Therefore, the undersigned’s analysis includes J.F.’s flu vaccination.

2 within weeks of receiving Tdap, Meningococcal[,] and [flu] vaccines.” 6 Pet. Mot. at 11. “Both the flu vaccine and Tdap have been associated with the development of ITP. It is more likely than not that J.F. developed ITP as a result of his vaccinations. He is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id.

Respondent disagrees that petitioner has proven the Althen criteria by preponderant evidence. See Resp. Response to Pet. Mot. (“Resp. Response”), filed July 19, 2021, at 10-15 (ECF No. 66). Respondent argues that petitioner has (1) “fail[ed] to present a reliable medical theory causally connecting [J.F.’s] vaccinations and chronic ITP,” (2) “fail[ed] to show a logical sequence of cause and effect between [J.F.’s] vaccinations and his chronic ITP,” and (3) failed to show a temporal relationship between the J.F.’s vaccinations and chronic ITP. Id.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Petitioner filed her petition on behalf of her minor child, J.F., on November 6, 2017, which was followed by medical records in February 2018. Petition; Pet. Exs. 1-2. On June 4, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, in which he recommended against compensation. Resp. Rept. at 2.

In October 2018, petitioner filed witness affidavits from petitioner, Jolie MacDougal, Vanessa Ferguson, and Tony Winterburn, as well as additional medical records. Pet. Exs. 3-7. Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Edwin N. Forman on November 29, 2018. Pet. Ex. 8. Thereafter, the parties began to engage in settlement negotiations. Non-PDF Scheduling Order dated Feb. 25, 2019.

This case was reassigned to the undersigned on October 3, 2019. Notice of Reassignment dated Oct. 3, 2019 (ECF No. 30). On June 30, 2020, the undersigned held a status conference. Order dated June 30, 2020 (ECF No. 43). The parties were still engaging in settlement negotiations. Id. at 1. Both parties requested an expert report from respondent. Id. Respondent filed an expert report from Dr. John J. Strouse on November 2, 2020. Resp. Ex. A.

The undersigned held a Rule 5 conference on January 7, 2021. Order dated Jan. 8, 2021 (ECF No. 54). The undersigned preliminarily found J.F.’s onset was three weeks after his vaccinations, which is consistent with vaccine-associated ITP. Id. at 2. The undersigned requested an additional expert report with medical literature from petitioner’s expert, specifying

6 Petitioner alleged that J.F. suffered ITP as a result of the Tdap, meningococcal conjugate, and flu vaccines. Petition at 1-2; Pet. Mot. at 1, 1 n.1.

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)
Shalala v. Whitecotton
514 U.S. 268 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Broekelschen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
618 F.3d 1339 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
De Bazan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
539 F.3d 1347 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Walther v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
485 F.3d 1146 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
418 F.3d 1274 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Koehn v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
773 F.3d 1239 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
69 Fed. Cl. 775 (Federal Claims, 2006)
Veryzer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
98 Fed. Cl. 214 (Federal Claims, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ferguson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2022.