# Jfn **tbe Wniteb** **$)tates �ourt** **of jfeberal** **�laims OFFICE**  **OF SPECIAL**  **MASTERS**

**No. 16-1446V**  **(not to** **be published)** 



### * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** **INDIGO GRANT,**  **as parent** **and natural**  **guardian of** **in**

**fant ,**  **M.G., Petitioner,** 

**V.** 

### SECRETARY **OF HEALTH**  **AND HUMAN**  **SERVICES,**

**Respondent.** 

### *

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

### * ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** **Indigo Grant,**  **Middletown, NY,** **pro se**  **litigant. Filed:**  **January 18,**  **2019**
**Dismissal; Failure** **to Adhere**  **to Orders;**  **Expert Report** 

**Daniel Principato,**  **U.S. Dep't**  **of Justice,**  **Washington, DC,**  **for Respondent.** 

**DECISION DISMISSING**  **CASE FOR**  **INSUFFICIENT PROOF** **AND FAILURE**  **TO PROSECUTE** **1** 

### On **November 2,**  **2016, Indigo**  **Grant filed**  **a petition**  **seeking compensation**  **under the**  **National Vaccine**  **Injury Compensation**  **Program ("Vaccine**  **Program"). 2**  

### She **alleged that**  **her son,**  **M.G., suffered**  **from various**  **skin conditions** **(including a**  **staph infection,**  **skin lesions,**  **and a** **rash) as** **a result** **of receiving** **the Hep** **B vaccine** **on November** **6, 2013,** **unspecified vaccines** **in December**  **of 2013,**  **and the**  **DTaP, IPV,**  **Hep B,**  **Hib, rotavirus, and pneumococcal vaccines**  **received on**  **January 16,**  **2014. Petition (ECF No.**  **1) ("Pet.")**  **at 1.** 

**1 Although**  **this Decision**  **has been**  **formally designated**  **"not to**  **be published,"**  **it will**  **nevertheless be**  **posted on**  **the Court** **offederal Claims's**  **website in** **accordance with** **the E-Govemment Act** **of 2002,** **44 U.S.C.**  **§ 3501** **(2012)). This**  **means that** **the Decision** **will be** **available to** **anyone with** **access to** **the internet.**  **As provided** **by 42** **U.S.C. §** **300aa 12(** **d)( 4** **)(B), however,**  **the parties**  **may object** **to the**  **Decision's inclusion**  **of certain**  **kinds of** **confidential information.**  **Specifically, under**  **Vaccine Rule**  **I 8(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 in**  **its current**  **form. Id.** 
**2 The** **Vaccine Program comprises Part**  **2 of** **the National** **Childhood Vaccine Injury** **Act of** **I 986,** **Pub. L.** **No. 99-660,**  **100 Stat.**  **3758, codified** **as amended** **at 42**  **U.S.C. §§**  **300aa-lO through**  **34 (2012)**  **[hereinafter "Vaccine** **Act" or** **"the Act"].**  **Individual section references hereafter** **will be** **to §** **300aa of** **the Act**  **(but will** **omit that** **statutory prefix).** 

**F**

### ed Ex 8136 4199 5790 

## REISSUED **FOR PUBLICATION** 

**MARCH 6, 2019 OSM**  **U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS**

### Respondent's 

### Rule 

### 4(c) Report, dated 

### July 31,2017, denied 

### that compensation was

appropriate, arguing 

### that (a) any rash/skin reaction 

### M.G. experienced occurred 

### too long after the 

### first vaccination 

### to be causal, 

### and 

### (b) the symptoms 

### in question appeared 

### to be 

### atopic eczema rather than something suggestive 

### of a vaccine reaction. ECF 

### No. 18 at 8-9. Petitioner subsequently amended her 

### petition to add a 

### claim of significant aggravation (to the extent onset was determined 

### to 

### fall too long after the 

### Hep 

### B vaccine's administration in November 2013). Amended Petition, dated December 

### 72,2017 (ECF 

### No. 29). 

### After the 

### filing of medical records, Respondent's 

### Rule 4(c) Report, and a 

### round 

### of initial 

### expert reports 

### from both sides, 

### Petitioner's counsel 

### withdrew 

## in August 2018, 

### and she subsequently proceede d as a 

### pro se 

### litigant. 

### At that 

### time, however, there remained an outstanding order 

### I had issued 

### prior to counsel's 

### withdrawal requiring Petitioner 

### to 

### file a supplemental expert 

### report 

### in this case. See Order, dated 

### April 20,2018 (docket 

### entry). Petitioner's 

### initial expert, Dr. 

### Alan Levin (a pathologist and immunologist), had 

### filed an expert 

### report 

### that 

### only cursorily addressed 

### the 

### significant aggravation aspect 

### of Petitioner's claim, and was otherwise conclusory 

### in its nature and analysis. See 

### Report, 

### filed November 

### 21,2017 (ECF 

### No. 

### 26-l). Respondent's expert, by contrast 

### (Dr. Markus Boos, a 

### pediatric dermatologist), offered a well-supported 

### opinion that 

### M.G.'s rash was 

### merely atopic 

### dermatitis, and that the record 

### did not corroborate 

### Petitioner's allegations 

### that 

### M.G.'s symptoms were aggravated 

### after 

### his December 2013 

## ot January 

### 2014 vaccinations. See Report, 

### filed 

### April 10, 2018 (ECF 

### No. 31-1). 

### I therefore had ordered Petitioner 

### to obtain 

### a supplemental expert, preferably 

### from a dermatologist, 

### to comment 

### on 

### Dr. Boos's opinion or otherwise supplement the existing 

### opinion of 

### Dr. Levin (who did not have demonstrated expertise 

### with dermatologic issues). 

### My 

### April Order seeking a supplemental report went unsatisfied 

### for several months.3 

### After counsel 

### indicated 

### in the summer 

### of 2018 

### his wish 

### to withdraw from representation, 

### however, 

### I held a status conference 

### with counsel 

### in late 

### August 2018. 

### At that time, 

### I allowed Petitioner a 

### brief extension, setting September 

### 28,2018, as 

### the new deadline 

### for the supplemental 

### report. 

## I also warned Petitioner that (because 

### of my view that she could not 

### prevail solely based on the 

### opinion of Dr. Levin), the case risked dismissal 

### if she did not obtain and 

### file the long-overdue supplemental report. See Scheduling Order, dated 

### August 21,2018 (ECF 

### No. 38).


### This second deadline 

### for an expert report also passed 

### without action on 

### Petitioner's part. 

### I therefore held a status conference 

### with Petitioner herself, at 

### which time 

### I explained to her the need 

### for the supplemental report, and again 

### informed her that dismissal was 

### likely 

### if my 

### prior order was 

### not complied 

### with. See 

### Scheduling 

### Order, dated October 

### 3, 2018 

### (ECF 

### No. 49)' 

## I provided Petitioner 

### yet another extension 

### of time in which to 

### file the supplemental report, 

### now setting 

### it as due 

### onNovember 

### 30,2018.ld. at2.

3After providing the petitioner a chance to determine how long she would need, 

### I issued an Order seffing July 31, 2018, as the deadline for the supplemental expert report. See Order, dated May 14,2018 (docket entry). 2

### Petitioner missed 

### this deadline as 

### well, nor 

### did she 

### indicate how she intended 

### to proceed



### with the case 

### (for example, 

### via a 

### ruling on the existing record and based 

### solely on 

### Dr. Levin's report). Accordingly, 

### on December 

### 6, 2018, 

## I issued 

### an Order 

### directing Petitioner 

### to file the supplemental expert 

### report immediately. See Order, dated Dec. 6, 2018 (ECF 

### No. 51). 

### Petitioner missed 

### this deadline as

### well. I therefore ordered Petitioner 

### to show cause 

### why the case should 

### not be dismissed 

### for failure 

### to adhere 

### to my orders. See 

### Order 

### to Show Cause, dated December 17, 

### 20lS (ECF 

### No. 52). Petitioner has not responded 

### to this last Order either.


### Ms. Grant's claim may 

### properly be dismissed 

### for her repeated failures 

### to comply 

### with my orders. 

### A petitioner's inaction and 

### failure to abide 

### by a special master's orders risks dismissal 

### of a 

### claim. Tsekouras v. Sec'y of 

### Health 

### & Human 

### Servs.,26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), 

### affd per curiam, 991 

### F.2d 810 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993); Sapharas v. Sec'y 

### of Health 

### & Human Servs., 35 Fed. 

### Cl. 503 (1996); 

### Vaccine Rule 21(b). Petitioner ignored 

### multiple deadlines 

## I set 

### for the 

### filing of a supplemental expert report. 

### In each instance 

### I provided her 

### with more than enough 

### time to contact 

### my chambers 

### or 

### file some 

### kind 

### of status 

### report, and also 

### allowed her reasonable extensions 

### of time once she became

### pro se. She was therefore on ample notice 

### of the 

### risks she 

### took not 

### following my orders. 

### Additionally, Petitioner's claim is reasonably dismissed on substantive grounds. To receive compensation under the 

### Vaccine 

### Act, a 

### petitioner must prove either 

### (1) that she suffered a Table 

### injury, 

### or (2) that she 

### suffered an 

### injury that was 

### actually caused 

### by a vaccine. See Sections 

### 11(c)(l), 13(a)(1XA). 

### An examination 

### of the record, 

### however, shows 

### that 

### M.G. did not suffer a 

### Table 

### irjury. Further, 

### the 

### filed medical records 

### do 

### not support her vaccine 

### injury claim. And although 

### Petitioner did 

### offer an expert 

### opinion to support her 

### claim, 

### I informed her 

### not long after its 

### filing that the 

### opinion was too 

### conclusory andlor offered by an expert 

### without knowledge of the 

### dermatologic issues 

### in this case 

### to be 

### sufficient 

### for a favorable 

### entitlement decision. She 

### did not, however, ever supplement that 

### opinion as ordered.


### Under the 

### Vaccine 

### Acq a 

### petitioner may not receive an award 

### of compensation based on 

### her claims alone. 

### In this case, there 

### is insufficient evidence 

### for Petitioner 

### to meet her burden 

### of proof. 

### In keeping 

### with Section 

### 11(c)(1)(A), her claim therefore cannot succeed 

### and must be dismissed. 

### Accordingly, 

### I hereby 

### DISMISS Petitioner's case. 

### In the absence 

### of a 

### motion 

### for review 

### filed pursuant 

### to RCFC 

### Appendix B, the 

### clerk 

### of the 

### court 

### SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance 

### with the terms 

### of this decision.a

4 pursuant to Vaccine Rule I l(a), the parties may expedite entry ofjudgment if (ointly or separately) they file notices renouncing their right to seek 

## review.

.

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED. 

# M

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

4