1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: April 29, 2020

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SUSAN HOEFLING, administrator of the *

Estate of ASHLEY SCHOOP, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * No. 18-1935V

*

v. * Special Master Dorsey

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Her Petition; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

* Rhabdomyolysis; Death.

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Renee Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, GW Univ. Law School, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Traci Patton, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On December 19, 2018, Susan Hoefling, administrator of the estate of Ashley Schoop,

(“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (“the Program”)2alleging that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination

administered on December 23, 2017, Ashley Schoop suffered from rhabdomyolysis and opioid 

addiction that led to her death. Petition at 1-2, 8. The information in the record, however, does 

not show entitlement to an award under the Program.

On April 28, 2020, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that

 

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 Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual 

section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
2

[a]n investigation of the supporting facts and science has demonstrated to the 

[p]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in 

the Vaccine Program. In these circumstances, to proceed any further would be 

unreasonable, and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent, and the 

Vaccine Program. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Her Petition at ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner states that she 

understands that a decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against her, and that 

she has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 

¶ 3. Petitioner states that she understands that she may apply for costs once her case is dismissed 

and judgment is entered against her and that respondent expressly reserves the right to question 

good faith and reasonable basis of her claim and oppose her application for cost if appropriate. 

Id. at ¶ 4. Additionally, petitioner intends to protect her right to file a civil action, and pursuant

to the Act, she intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against her and elect to 

file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 6. 

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that she 

suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding 

to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccination. 

See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). The records submitted by petitioner show that she does not 

meet the statutory requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) to establish entitlement to 

compensation. The Federal Circuit has explained that the eligibility requirements in Section 

11(c) are not mere pleading requirements or matters of proof at trial, but instead are “threshold 

criteri[a] for seeking entry into the compensation program.” Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 93 F.3d 781, 785-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion and a review of the record, the undersigned 

finds that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Thus, this case is dismissed. The Clerk of 

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Special Master