Golden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedMay 3, 2024
Docket18-1223V
StatusUnpublished

This text of Golden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Golden 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
Golden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2024).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 25, 2024

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JEAN GOLDEN, * No. 18-1223V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bridget C. McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

FACT RULING1

On August 15, 2018, Jean Golden (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”)3 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 12, 2015. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Following the submission of

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (“the Vaccine Act” or “Act”). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 3 CIDP is “a slowly progressive, autoimmune type of demyelinating polyneuropathy characterized by progressive weakness and impaired sensory function in the limbs and enlargement of the peripheral nerves, usually with elevated protein in the cerebrospinal fluid.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1468 (33rd ed. 2020) [hereinafter “Dorland’s”]. Neuropathy refers to “a functional disturbance of pathologic change in the peripheral nervous system[.]” Id. at 1250. Polyneuropathy, also known as peripheral neuropathy, is “neuropathy of several peripheral nerves simultaneously[.]” Id. at 1468. Demyelination is “destruction, removal, or loss of the myelin sheath of a nerve or nerves.” Id. at 480. A myelin sheath is “the cylindrical covering on the axons of some neurons[.]” Id. at 1673. Axon is “the process of a neuron by which impulses travel away from the cell body[.]” Id. at 183. expert reports and briefing, the parties still disagree on a number of issues, including whether Petitioner’s neuropathy symptoms began before her November 12, 2015 vaccination. After carefully analyzing and weighing all the evidence and testimony presented in this case in accordance with the applicable legal standards,4 I find that the record contains preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s neuropathy predated her vaccination.

I. Procedural History

Petitioner filed medical records and an affidavit, along with her petition, on August 15, 2018. Pet.; Pet’r’s Exs. 1–13, ECF No. 1. She then filed a statement of completion on August 17, 2018. ECF No. 7. Petitioner filed additional medical records between April 17, 2019, and October 2, 2019, as well as a statement of completion on October 2, 2019. Pet’r’s Ex. 14, ECF No. 15-1; Pet’r’s Ex. 15, ECF No. 20-1; Pet’r’s Exs. 16–18, ECF No. 23; Pet’r’s Exs. 19–22, ECF No. 26; Pet’r’s Exs. 23–26, ECF No. 28; ECF No. 29.

On January 23, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report arguing that this case is not appropriate for compensation. Resp’t’s Report, ECF No. 31. He asserted that “the medical records demonstrate that [P]etitioner’s symptomology more likely than not predated vaccination.” Id. at 14. Respondent further claimed that “the medical records themselves reflect inconsistencies in [P]etitioner’s recollections.” Id.

On April 24, 2020, Petitioner filed an expert report by Frederick Nahm, M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Nahm’s curriculum vitae (“CV”), and medical literature. Pet’r’s Exs. 27–41, ECF No. 32. Respondent filed an expert report from Vinay Chaudhry, M.D., Dr. Chaudhry’s CV, and medical literature on July 27, 2020. Resp’t’s Exs. A, A Tabs 1–13, B, ECF Nos. 34–35. Petitioner filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. Nahm on April 27, 2021. Pet’r’s Ex. 42, ECF No. 42-1.

On June 2, 2021, Respondent indicated via email that he does not believe an entitlement hearing is necessary in this case, but Petitioner responded that she would prefer to proceed with an entitlement hearing. Informal Comm., docketed July 14, 2021. Respondent noted that he would need to retain a new expert if this case were to proceed to a hearing because Dr. Chaudhry is no longer able to testify. Id. Respondent suggested briefing to determine whether a hearing is necessary. Id. I held a status conference to discuss this issue on September 7, 2021. Min. Entry, docketed Sept. 7, 2021. Respondent noted concerns about the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms and her diagnosis. Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 43. I noted “concerns regarding Petitioner’s pre- vaccination medical records as well as those from shortly after her vaccination.” Id. I directed the parties to submit briefing regarding the issues in dispute in the form of prehearing submissions to help me determine whether an entitlement hearing is necessary. Id.

4 While I have reviewed all of the information filed in this case, only those filings and records that are most relevant to the decision will be discussed. Moriarty v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision.”) (citation omitted); see also Paterek v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 527 F. App'x 875, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Finding certain information not relevant does not lead to—and likely undermines—the conclusion that it was not considered.”).

2 Petitioner filed her brief on December 25, 2021. Pet’r’s Br., ECF No. 45. Respondent filed a response on March 8, 2022. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF No. 48. On July 7, 2022, I ordered Petitioner to file a reply addressing her medical theory. Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 49. Petitioner filed her reply on September 28, 2022. Pet’r’s Reply, ECF No. 52.

On November 29, 2022, I held a status conference with the parties to discuss their briefing. See Min. Entry, docketed Nov. 29, 2022. Petitioner noted that she would like to retain an immunologist to build on her medical theory, but Respondent noted continuing concern about the factual issues in this case. I determined that I would issue a Fact Ruling to resolve these issues, specifically the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

II. Factual Background

A. Medical Records

1. Pre-vaccination Medical Records

On February 14, 2012, Petitioner presented to her primary care provider (“PCP”), Stephen Grybowski, M.D. Pet’r’s Ex. 26 at 136, ECF No. 28-4. She reported “intermittent paresthesias5 in her feet” following thyroid6 surgery/thoracic goiter7 removal. 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)
Golden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2024.