Sharma v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedAugust 28, 2020
Docket16-834
StatusPublished

This text of Sharma v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sharma 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
Sharma v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2020).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-834V Filed: May 15, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P.S., * To Be Published * Petitioner, * v. * Dismissal; Ruling on the Record; * Hepatitis B Vaccine; Undifferentiated SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Connective Tissue Disease (“UCTD”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Ankylosing Spondylitis; Autoimmune or * Atrophic Gastritis; Significant Respondent. * Aggravation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard Moeller, Esq., Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for petitioner. Voris Johnson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON THE RECORD AND DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1

Roth, Special Master:

On July 14, 2016, P.S. (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging that he developed undifferentiated connective tissue disease (“UCTD”), autoimmune or atrophic gastritis, and other injuries, which were either caused or significantly aggravated by hepatitis B vaccinations he received on August 14, 2013, December 17, 2013, and May 16, 2014. See Petition (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1. Petitioner has filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record. The undersigned finds that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that hepatitis B vaccines caused his UCTD, autoimmune or atrophic gastritis, or any other injuries. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

1 This Decision has been formally designated “to be published,” which means it will be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id. 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). I. Background

A. Procedural History

The petition was filed on July 14, 2016, along with several medical records. See Petition, ECF No. 1; Pet. Ex. 1-4, ECF No. 3. On July 15, 2016, petitioner filed several articles of medical literature related to the hepatitis B vaccine and UCTD. See Pet. Ex. 5-10, ECF No. 4.

An initial status conference was held on August 24, 2016. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 9. Respondent had not yet had an opportunity to review petitioner’s records and requested time to determine whether there were any outstanding medical records. Id. Petitioner filed additional medical records through September of 2016. See Pet. Ex. 11, ECF No. 10; Pet. Ex. 11A, ECF No. 11; Pet. Ex. 12, ECF No. 16; Pet. Ex. 13, ECF No. 17.

On November 17, 2016, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report (“Resp. Rpt.”), stating the case was not appropriate for compensation. Resp. Rpt., ECF No. 20. Respondent raised several issues including petitioner’s lack of a definitive diagnosis for his alleged injury, stating it was the petitioner’s burden “to demonstrate that he actually suffers from the injury alleged, UCTD.” Id. at 17. Additionally, respondent stated “virtually every specialist [petitioner] saw expressed skepticism that the hep B (sic) vaccine was the cause of his symptoms.” Id. Finally, respondent noted two of petitioner’s treating physicians were concerned that petitioner’s symptoms related to his mental health and offered referrals to mental health professionals, which petitioner refused. Id. at 7-8, 13.

A status conference was held on January 11, 2017 to discuss the issues raised by respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 21. Petitioner’s counsel advised that petitioner was suffering from UCTD as alleged in the petition and planned to have an expert review petitioner’s medical records. Id. Respondent’s counsel raised reasonable basis in the filing of the petition. Id.

Petitioner was ordered to file an expert report or a status report indicating how he intended to proceed by March 13, 2017. Id. Petitioner requested and received five extensions of time. See ECF Nos. 22, 24, 26, 27, 28. On December 8, 2017, petitioner filed a status report requesting a status conference. Pet. S.R., ECF No. 29. A status conference was held on December 19, 2017 at which time petitioner’s claim was again discussed, specifically petitioner’s lack of a definitive diagnosis for his alleged injuries, that all objective testing was normal, and there was no temporal relationship between petitioner’s receipt of the hepatitis B vaccines and any injury. Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 30. Petitioner’s counsel advised he had done all he could do to secure an expert report but had been unsuccessful, and that he planned to withdraw as counsel. Id. After further discussion, an Order was issued for counsel to file Motions for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and to Withdraw as counsel by February 2, 2018. Id. at 2.

Petitioner filed additional medical records on February 1, 2018. Pet. Ex. 14-15, ECF Nos. 31-32. Petitioner’s counsel filed Motions for Interim Fees and Costs and to Withdraw as counsel on February 2, 2018. ECF Nos. 33-34. Respondent filed his response to petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on February 13, 2018 and petitioner filed a reply on March 20, 2018.

2 See ECF Nos. 36, 41. Based on the filings, the undersigned deferred ruling on the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs until after entitlement was decided and granted the Motion to Withdraw as counsel. See Order, ECF No. 42; Order, ECF No. 43. The docket reflected the petitioner as pro se.

On May 7, 2018, petitioner’s current counsel electronically filed a Motion to Substitute Attorney in place of petitioner as pro se. ECF No. 45. An Order was issued on May 9, 2018 instructing the pro se petitioner to file his motion via paper filing by May 22, 2018. See Order, ECF No. 46. Petitioner’s electronically filed Motion to Substitute Attorney was stricken See id. On May 18, 2018, petitioner properly filed a Motion to Substitute Attorney substituting Richard Moeller as petitioner’s counsel. ECF No. 47.

Petitioner filed additional medical records through July 2, 2018. See Pet. Ex. 28-30, ECF No. 49; Pet. Ex. 31, ECF No. 50.

The first status conference with Mr. Moeller as counsel was held on July 24, 2018. See Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 52. Mr. Moeller advised that he had secured an expert who was willing to review the medical records and advise whether a claim could be supported. Id. Petitioner’s counsel was reminded that reasonable basis had been raised by respondent and reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs was not guaranteed. Petitioner’s counsel was further reminded that any expert should rely on the contemporaneous medical records, which are assumed to be accurate and complete. See id. Petitioner was ordered to file an expert report or a status report by October 22, 2018. Id. at 2, ECF No. 52. On October 22, 2018, petitioner filed a status report advising that he did not have an expert report. ECF No. 53.

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)
Locane v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
685 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Hibbard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
698 F.3d 1355 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Lombardi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
656 F.3d 1343 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Stillwell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
118 Fed. Cl. 47 (Federal Claims, 2014)
Paluck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
786 F.3d 1373 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Moriarty v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
844 F.3d 1322 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Lasnetski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
128 Fed. Cl. 242 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Lasnetski v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
696 F. App'x 497 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Garner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
133 Fed. Cl. 140 (Federal Claims, 2017)
Melka Marine, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,319 (Federal Claims, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sharma v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharma-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2020.