Sajbel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 25, 2017
Docket14-741
StatusPublished

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

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (Filed: March 31, 2017) No. 14-741V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * SARA ELIZABETH SAJBEL, as * To Be Published Representative of the Estate of * B.B.T., Deceased, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Hepatitis B * (“Hep B”) Vaccine; v. * Hemophagocytic * Lymphohistiocytosis (“HLH”); SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Death. AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner. Lisa Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Roth, Special Master:

On August 15, 2014, Sara Sajbel (“Ms. Sajbel,” or “petitioner”) filed a petition as representative for the estate of her deceased son, B.B.T., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). The petition alleged that the hepatitis B vaccination that B.B.T. received on March 28, 2013 caused him to suffer from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (“HLH”). Petition at 1.

1 Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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 (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access. 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 (2012). 1 I conducted an entitlement hearing in this case on April 14, 2016, in Denver, Colorado. For the reasons stated herein, I find that petitioner has proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the hepatitis B vaccine that B.B.T. received at 32 minutes of age more likely than not caused his development of acquired hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Accordingly, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

I. Procedural History

Contemporaneously with filing the petition, petitioner also filed her affidavit (“Pet. Aff.”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed medical records, Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-13 on September 9, 2014. ECF No. 7. On December 17, 2014, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report (“Rule 4”) which stated that compensation was not appropriate, along with an expert report from Dr. Kenneth McClain and supporting medical literature, Respondent’s Exhibits (“Res. Ex.”) A-E. ECF No. 13. Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Vera Byers on June 1, 2015, and supporting medical literature on June 12, 2015. Pet. Ex. 14, 15-21, ECF Nos. 21, 22. Petitioner filed additional medical literature on July 6, 2015. Pet. Ex. 22, ECF No. 23. Petitioner filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. Byers on September 10, 2015. Pet Ex. 23, ECF No. 25. That same day, respondent filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. McClain. Res. Ex. F, ECF No. 26. Respondent filed supporting medical literature via compact disc on September 21, 2015. Res. Ex. G-P, ECF No. 28.

This case was reassigned to me on October 22, 2015. ECF No. 31. After conducting a status conference on December 3, 2015, I ordered the parties to submit a joint status report identifying potential hearing dates. See Order, issued Dec. 3, 2015, ECF No. 32. On December 14, 2015, I issued a prehearing order, setting an entitlement hearing for March 24 and 25, 2016, in Denver, Colorado. Prehearing Order, ECF No. 34. Petitioner filed her pre-hearing brief on January 28, 2016. ECF No. 39. Respondent filed his pre-hearing brief on February 18, 2016. Due to inclement weather in Colorado forcing an adjournment of the initial hearing, this case ultimately went to hearing on April 14, 2016. Post-hearing briefs were filed by both parties on November 7, 2016.

This matter is now ripe for decision.

II. Summary of Relevant Medical Records

A. Prenatal Development

Petitioner, B.B.T.’s mother, was 24 years old when she became pregnant with B.B.T. Petitioner had a history of asthma, fibroids, and ovarian cysts. Pet. Ex. 1 at 23. Shortly after undergoing bilateral ovarian cystectomies on August 1, 2012, petitioner had several positive pregnancy tests. Id. at 25. Petitioner presented to Dr. Berryman on August 6, 2012, where petitioner had a positive urine pregnancy test. Id. Dr. Berryman prescribed 200mg of Prometrium,3

3 Prometrium is a brand name for progestin, a hormone. Prometrium can be prescribed to help maintain a pregnancy when not enough progestin is being made by the body. “Progestin,” Mayo Clinic, mayoclinic.org.

2 and ordered an hCG test.4 Id. Petitioner presented to Dr. Berryman on August 16, 2012 after a positive hCG test. Id. at 32. An ultrasound showed a “gestational sac with yolk sac.” Id. Dr. Berryman discontinued the Prometrium capsules, and substituted “Crinone Gel, 8%.” Id. Petitioner presented on August 28, 2012, with complaints of increased nausea and vomiting; 25 mg of promethazine HCl was prescribed. Id. at 30.

On January 16, 2013, an ultrasound revealed that petitioner had polyhydramnios, or excess amniotic fluid. The fetal anatomy, including the stomach, bowel, right kidney, left kidney, and bladder, was noted as normal. Pet. Ex. 1 at 54. On January 30, 2013, petitioner saw Dr. Gene LaMonica and Jenna Cedar, a genetic counselor, at Colorado Health Medical Group, for a detailed ultrasound. A transabdominal ultrasound revealed a normal head, brain, face, spine, chest, abdominal wall, gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, bladder, extremities, skeleton, and four chamber heart. Id. at 39. Following the ultrasound, Dr. LaMonica concluded “…we were able to confirm significant polyhydramnios (AFI of 33 cm) with near fetal macrosomia (large baby). Together, these findings strongly suggest the development of gestational diabetes….” Id. at 39. Petitioner was prescribed betamethasone steroid injections to treat the polyhydramnios. Id. at 28. One injection was administered in January, and the second injection on February 26, 2013. Id. at 28. An ultrasound performed on February 27, 2013 revealed the fetal abdomen, including the stomach, bowel, right and left kidneys, and bladder, to be normal. Id. at 66. On March 6, 2013, an ultrasound showed normal amniotic fluid and normal fetal abdomen, including the stomach, bowel, right and left kidneys, and bladder. Id. at 57, 59. An ultrasound performed on March 13, 2013 revealed right pyelectasis5 and “fluid improved.” Id. at 61. On March 20, 2013, examination showed that the polyhydramnios was improved/resolved. Petitioner expressed concern about excessive fetal growth and requested an amniocentesis. A three hour glucose testing was refused. Petitioner advised that she was checking her blood sugar via finger prick and that all numbers were normal. Pet. Ex. 1 at 27; 63.

On March 27, 2013, petitioner was admitted to Parkview Hospital for ultrasound guided amniocentesis.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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