Orm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 18, 2023
Docket14-257
StatusPublished

This text of Orm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Orm 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
Orm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2023).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 24, 2023

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AUTUMN ORM, * PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 14-257V * v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; Human Papillomavirus AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“HPV”) Vaccine; Celiac Disease. * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 2, 2014, Autumn Orm (“Petitioner”) 2 filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10

1 Because this Decision 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 Decision 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 petition was originally filed by Theodore and Jodi Orm, as parents of Autumn Orm. Petition (ECF No. 1). On November 9, 2015, the case caption was amended to Autumn Orm because she reached the age of majority. Order dated Nov. 9, 2015 (ECF No. 60).

1 et seq. (2012) 3 alleging that as a result of human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccines (Gardasil) she received on August 30, 2011 and November 22, 2011, she suffers from celiac disease. 4 Amended (“Am.”) Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 172); Joint Submission, filed May 23, 2022, at 1 (ECF No. 296).

After carefully analyzing and weighing the evidence presented in this case, in accordance with the applicable legal standards, the undersigned finds Petitioner has failed to provide preponderant evidence that the HPV vaccines she received caused her to develop celiac disease. Thus, Petitioner has failed to satisfy her burden of proof under Althen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.

II. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

The parties agree that Petitioner suffers from celiac disease but disagree as to the onset of her illness. Joint Submission at 1. They also disagree about whether the HPV vaccinations can or did cause Petitioner’s celiac disease 5 and dispute all three Althen prongs. Id.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has a lengthy procedural history. Petitioner initially alleged that she suffered bilateral leg weakness and myasthenia gravis as a result of her HPV vaccinations. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). Subsequently, she filed an amended petition, in which she alleged that she suffered “numerous autoimmune diseases including: Celiac Disease, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (“POTS”), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”), Small Fiber Neuropathy, in addition to others,” which she alleged were caused by her HPV vaccinations on August 30, 2011 and November 22, 2011. Am. Petition at Preamble.

3 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 Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 4 Petitioner initially alleged that she suffered from bilateral leg weakness and myasthenia gravis, and subsequently asserted that she suffered from celiac disease, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (“POTS”), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”), Small Fiber Neuropathy, and other autoimmune diseases. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1); Amended (“Am.”) Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 172). In her joint submission, however, Petitioner narrowed the issues and confirmed celiac disease as her alleged vaccine-related illness. Joint Submission, filed May 23, 2022, at 1 (ECF No. 296). 5 In her supportive brief, Petitioner took the position that “the development of celiac disease as a result of Gardasil [HPV vaccine] led to the development of additional autoimmune disease.” Petitioner’s Brief (“Pet. Br.”), filed May 7, 2021, at 6 (ECF No. 265). Since the undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed to prove causation by preponderant evidence, she does not reach the question of whether Petitioner’s celiac disease caused or contributed to other illnesses.

2 The parties filed numerous expert reports and medical literature during the course of litigation. This case was assigned to the undersigned on December 8, 2021. Notice of Reassignment dated Dec. 8, 2021 (ECF No. 285). Subsequently, the parties filed a joint submission to clarify Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Joint Submission. During a status conference on June 8, 2022, the undersigned asked the parties to consider settlement negotiations. Order dated June 8, 2022, at 1 (ECF No. 297). On July 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a status report stating her preference to “resolve this case through a ruling on the record.” Petitioner’s (“Pet.”) Joint Status Report (“Rept.”), filed July 1, 2022 (ECF No. 300). Subsequently, in a status report dated November 10, 2022, Respondent “reviewed [P]etitioner’s demand and determined that he would like to continue with litigation.” Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Status Rept., filed Nov. 10, 2022 (ECF No. 309). Respondent also requested that the undersigned issue a ruling on the record. Id.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

IV. MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY 6

Celiac disease is “a life-long autoimmune condition mainly involving the proximal small intestine of genetically susceptible individuals.” Pet. Exhibit (“Ex.”) 88 at 14. Gluten, defined as a “storage protein of wheat,” along with similar proteins in barley and rye, are the “offending inducers” of the illness. Id. “Tissue transglutaminase (tTg)[7] is the auto-antigen against which the abnormal immune response is directed [] and the [immunoglobulin A (“IgA”)]-anti-tTg is the most used serological marker[] to diagnose the disease.” Id. Iron deficiency anemia, caused by nutritional deficiency, is a known complication of the illness. Id. Historically, the “classic picture” of celiac disease included the triad of malnutrition, chronic diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Id.

The disease is triggered by ingestion of gluten, a protein present in wheat, and other grains such as barley and rye. Resp. Ex. T at 4. When a person with celiac disease eats gluten, the protein in it damages the surface of the intestine, or the villi, which are “small finger-like projections along the wall of the small intestine.” Id. When the villi are damaged, the intestine is unable to absorb nutrients when eating. Id. This may cause malnourishment, weight loss, diarrhea, bleeding, and abdominal pain. 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)
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)
Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
418 F.3d 1274 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Stone v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
676 F.3d 1373 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Flores v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
115 Fed. Cl. 157 (Federal Claims, 2014)
Koehn v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
773 F.3d 1239 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Waterman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
123 Fed. Cl. 564 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Garner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
133 Fed. Cl. 140 (Federal Claims, 2017)
Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
69 Fed. Cl. 775 (Federal Claims, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Orm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orm-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2023.