Kinzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJune 20, 2017
Docket16-1293
StatusUnpublished

This text of Kinzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kinzie 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
Kinzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2017).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1293V Filed: May 23, 2017 Not to be Published

************************************* ROBERT KINZIE, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; phrenic * nerve paralysis; Parsonage-Turner SECRETARY OF HEALTH * syndrome; no expert report; dismissal AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* F. John Caldwell, Jr., Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. Darryl R. Wishard, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION 1

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE

On October 7, 2016, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10–34 (2012) (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered either on November 3, 2013 or November 1, 2014 caused him phrenic nerve paralysis on the right and/or Parsonage-Turner syndrome, and, in the alternative for the latter vaccination, significant aggravation. Pet. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 8.

The Vaccine Administration Record of the Army National Guard shows that petitioner

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document’s enclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access. received flu vaccine on November 3, 2013 and on September 30, 2015 (petitioner did not allege any vaccine injury from the September 30, 2015 vaccination.) It does not show petitioner received flu vaccine on November 1, 2014. Med. recs. Ex. 1, at 1. However, petitioner’s military record shows that he received flu vaccine on November 1, 2014. Med. recs. Ex. 8, at 773-74.

The medical records show that the onset of petitioner’s right shoulder injury was April 21, 2014, five months after petitioner’s November 3, 2013 flu vaccination. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 28. The pain radiated to his right neck. Id. Petitioner had done some yard work on April 19, 2014. Id.

No medical records show reactions to any of the three flu vaccinations administered within the statute of limitations of the filing date of the petition.

On October 24, 2016, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed, which would be discussed during the first telephonic status conference the undersigned held in this case on November 21, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. (EST).

On November 21, 2016, the undersigned held the first and only telephonic status conference in this case. Petitioner’s counsel stated this was a tough case. Phrenic nerve injury is not an autoimmune disease. Petitioner’s counsel wanted to consult with a neurologist. He stated he would not proceed with the case if a neurologist refused to support petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner’s counsel also stated he would show the neurologist the undersigned’s Order to Show Cause. By Order dated November 21, 2016, the undersigned gave petitioner’s counsel a deadline of January 23, 2017 to file a status report explaining how he intended to proceed, i.e., with a motion to dismiss or by filing an expert report.

On January 23, 2017, petitioner’s counsel filed a status report stating that he was in the process of having a neurologist review the case file and he expected to file an expert report in 60 days. On January 23, 2017, the undersigned issued a non-PDF Order granting petitioner’s informal motion for an extension of time until March 24, 2017 to file an expert report.

On March 24, 2017, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for enlargement of time, stating that the original neurologist was unable to review the records and counsel had retained another neurologist but needed 60 more days to file an expert report. On March 24, 2017, the undersigned issued a non-PDF Order granting petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time until May 22, 2017 to file an expert report.

On May 22, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for an amendment of the schedule, stating petitioner’s counsel will not be filing an expert report in this case. Petitioner wanted 30 days to file either a dispositive motion or other appropriate pleading.

The undersigned DENIES petitioner’s motion for an amendment of the schedule and DISMISSES this case.

2 FACTS

Petitioner was born on February 18, 1968.

On November 3, 2013, petitioner received flu vaccine. Med. recs. Ex. 1, at 1.

On April 21, 2014, five months after petitioner’s flu vaccination on November 3, 2013, petitioner sought medical treatment for right shoulder pain radiating to his right neck. Med. recs. Ex. 1, at 28. He had done yard work on April 19, 2014. Id.

On May 5, 2014, petitioner had a pulmonary function study performed. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 108. The results showed abnormal pulmonary function because petitioner had moderate, obstructive lung disease with mild airway reversibility. In addition, he had moderate hypoxia on the arterial blood gas. Id.

On October 21, 2014, petitioner had a chest x-ray in comparison to one done on January 21, 2013. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 95. Petitioner had a mildly enlarged heart with elevation of the right hemidiaphragm with right basilar air-space opacity and likely effusion, all new in comparison to his January 21, 2013 chest x-ray. Calcified nodules in his lungs bilaterally suggested prior granulomatous disease. Id.

On November 7, 2014, petitioner had a CT scan of his chest and abdomen with contrast, compared to a prior two-view scan of his chest on January 21, 2013. Id. at 92. Petitioner had moderate elevation of his right hemidiaphragm. This condition was new compared to his previous two-view chest scan. These findings might be related to paralysis of the phrenic nerve. Id. Petitioner also had atelectasis/infiltrate at the right base of the lung, just above the elevated hemidiaphragm, and evidence of healed granulomatous disease. Id. at 93.

On February 26, 2015, petitioner saw Dr. Ruxandra C. Ionescu, a pulmonologist, for dyspnea on exertion that started about one year previously in April 2014. Med. recs. Ex. 4, at 17. A chest x-ray showed an elevated right diaphragm. A neck MRI showed a couple of bulging discs. Id. Dr. Ionescu thought petitioner might have exercise-induced asthma. Id. at 18.

On April 25, 2015, petitioner had a fluoroscopy performed for shortness of breath. Med. res. Ex. 3, at 78. Petitioner had elevated and decreased movement of the right hemidiaphragm. Id.

On June 16, 2015, petitioner saw Dr. David W. Harvey, a neurologist, because he was concerned he had a neuromuscular disorder. Med. recs. Ex. 2, at 69. Petitioner gave a history of waking in April 2014 with severe pain in the back of his neck on the right side. Because he had asthma and had difficulty running, he saw a pulmonologist, Dr. Ionescu, who ordered pulmonary function tests.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kinzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinzie-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2017.