# I 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# Qeourt ofjfeberal Qelaitn5 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS


### * * * * * * * * TERRANCE MONK, c/o Child Daughter, 

### Petitioner, 

### v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES , Respondent. Filed: April 3, 2018 

### * * * * * 

## * UNPUBLISHED 

## * 

## * * No. 18-68V Special Master Gowen Dismissal; In sufficient Proof; Severity Requireme nt. 

## * * * * * * * * * * * * 

## * * 

## * * * * * Tenance Monk , appearing prose, 

### for petitioner. Debra Begley, United States Depa1tment of Justice , Washington, DC , for res pondent. 

### DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1 

# l

On January 16, 2018, Terrance Monk filed a pro se 

### petition on behalf of his minor daughter in the Nati onal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [" Program"]. 2 

### Petitioner alleged that hi s daughter s uffered an anaphylactic reaction as a res ult of a DTaP and / or Polio vaccination administered on or about October 16 , 2017. Petition at 1-2, [ECF No. I]

. For the reasons stated herein, petiti oner's claim is di smissed for failure to meet the severity requirements of 42 U.S .C. § 300aa-1 l(c)(l)(D).

1 Pursuant to the E -Goverrunent Act of2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The cow1's web s ite is at http: //www.uscfc.u sc om1s.gov/ aggregator /s ources/7. Before the decision is posted on the com1's website, each pa11y has 14 days to file a motion requesting redacti on " of any information furnished by that patiy: (1) that i s a trade secret or comme r cial or fin ancial in substance and is pri v ileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical fil es or si milar file s, the di sclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwatrnnted invasion of privacy." Vaccine Rule J 8(b). "An objecting pa1iy must provide t he court with a proposed redacted ve rsion of the decision." Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court's website without any changes. I d.

2 The Program comprises Pa112 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter "Vaccine Act" or " the Act")

. Hereafter, indi v idual sec tion r eferences will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 

### REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 1 2018 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

### I. Procedural History Petitioner filed his petition without accompanying medical records on January 16, 2018. 3 

### Petitioner also filed a Motion to Proceed 

### informapauperis that same day. ECF No. 4. On March 29, 2018, the undersigned held an initial status conference with petitioner and respondent's counsel, which was digitally recorded. During the status conference, the undersigned reviewed petitioner's financial situation and granted his Motion to Proceed 

### informa pauperis. An order reflecting the same will be issued separately. The undersigned then reviewed petitioner's claim. Petitioner stated that within hours of receiving the vaccination(s), his daughter "began feeling faint, [turning] blue, [and] swelling in her lips and throat." Petition at 

## i! 6. Petitioner's daughter presented to the emergency room, and petitioner noted that the doctor "determined she suffered a form of anaphylactic reaction and prescribed Benadryl." 

### Id.**at~** 

### 7. Petitioner's daughter then presented for follow-up appointments and missed school, which petitioner notes was a hardship on the child's mother. 

### Id.**at~~** 

### 7-8. Petitioner provided an update on his daughter's condition during the initial status conference. She was fully recovered in the days following the vaccination(s) and currently has no residual issues related to the anaphylactic reaction.



### II. Conclusion A petitioner must establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program through one of two ways. The first way is to establish that he or she suffered a "Table Injury," i.e., that he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table ["Table"] and subsequently developed a co1Tesponding injury within a corresponding period of time. § 300aa- l l (c)(I). 

### The second way is to establish that the vaccine actually caused the onset or significant aggravation of a condition in the vaccinee. 42 U.S.C. 

### § 300aa-13(a)(l)(A). To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. 

### A/then v. Sec'y of Health & 

### Human Servs,, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the present case, petitioner alleges a Table injury. 

### See Petition**at~** 

### 9. Both the DTaP and Polio vaccines are listed on the Table and both list anaphylaxis as a Table injury if it manifested within four hours. 4 

### 42 U.S.C. 

### § 300aa-14.

3 Petitioner did file a copy of the appointment card for his daughter's DTAP and Polio vaccinations scheduled for October 16, 2018, but not a record of vaccination or the medical records from that visit. See Pet. Ex.Cat 1. Petitioner also filed a one-page sheet of discharge instructions from the emergency room dated October 16, 2017, but not the actual medical records from that visit. Id. at 2.
4 Petitioner does not specify if his daughter received a vaccine containing a polio live virus ("OPV") or a vaccine containing polio inactivated virus ("1PV' 1 ). The undersigned assu1nes she received IPV, for which anaphylactic reaction is listed as a Table injury if it manifested within four hours, but notes that if she received OPV, anaphylactic reaction is not listed as a Table injury.

2However, to be eligible for compensation, petitioners in the Pro gram mu s t as a threshold matter demonstrate that they meet the severity requirement of42 U.S.C. 

### § 300aa

- l 1(c)(l)(D), which provides: A p etition for compensation under the Pro gram for a vaccine-re lated injury or death shall contain

.... an affidavit, and supporting documentation, demonstratin g that the person who suffered su ch injury

.... s uffered the residual effects or complications of su ch illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than 6 months after the admini stration of the vaccine. 42 U.S.C

. § 300aa-1 l(c)(l)(D) (emphasis added). The undersigned appreciates the hardship incurred by petitioner's daughter and family to treat her anaphylactic reaction and to atte nd follow -up appointments, requiring petitioner's daughter to miss schoo l and her mother to mi ss work. H owever, per petitioner's representati on during the i n itia l status conferen ce , hi s daughter's condition reso lved within d ays after vaccination and no residual effects or co mplication s have persisted for greater than six mo nth s . As s uch, the in jury doe s n ot m eet the thre s ho ld r equirements of the Vacc ine Act, and it i s therefore appropriate to dismiss the claim

. Pursuant to Rule 21(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, this claim is DISMISSED for petitioner's failure to meet the s eve rity req uirement of 

### 42 U.S.C. 

### § 300aa-11( c)(l)(D). The Clerk of the 

### Court s I**cn g**  

### ent accordin gly. 

### IT I S SO ORDERED. 

# tA

Special Mas ter

3