In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1292V

Filed: February 21, 2018

Not to be Published.

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

JENNIFER SOGHOMONIAN, *

on behalf of K.S., * 

 *

Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Allison R. Bracy, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioner.

Darryl R. Wishard, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION1

On October 30, 2015, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that her son, K.S., suffered from idiopathic 

thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”) as a result of his receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”) 

vaccine on October 15, 2012. Pet. at 1-2. Petitioner alleges a Table injury, or in the alternative, 

an off-Table injury caused in fact by MMR vaccine. 

This case is now DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the 

undersigned’s Order of December 28, 2017 and Order to Show Cause dated February 12, 2018, 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that 

all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets 

or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar 

information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a 

decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the 

document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within 

the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”) 

vaccine; 

idiopathic thrombocytopenic

purpura (“ITP”); 

dismissal for failure to prosecute
2

under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1).

 BACKGROUND

The case was initially assigned to Chief Special Master Dorsey (SPU) on October 30, 

2015. 

Petitioner filed medical records on November 16, 2015. Petitioner filed more medical 

records and the statement of completion on March 24, 2016. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) 

Report on April 19, 2016. 

On May 24, 2016, Chief Special Master Dorsey found preponderant evidence to support 

a preliminary finding that the onset of K.S.’s ITP occurred between November 23, 2012 and 

November 30, 2012, within the 30-day timeframe for a Table injury of ITP following MMR 

vaccine. Doc 20, at 2. Because respondent argued K.S.’s human metapneumovirus (“HMPV”) 

caused K.S.’s injury, Chief Special Master Dorsey ordered petitioner to file an expert report 

addressing whether HMPV played a causal role in the development of K.S.’s ITP by July 18, 

2016. After two motions for an extension of time, petitioner filed her expert report on October 

13, 2016. 

On February 23, 2017, Chief Special Master Dorsey held a status conference, during 

which respondent’s counsel explained that he received authority to enter into settlement 

discussions and it was represented that K.S. had been experiencing speech impairments, but 

respondent does not believe these symptoms are related to his ITP injury. Petitioner said K.S.’s 

speech pathology is a result of the intracranial hemorrhage he experienced as a result of his ITP. 

Chief Special Master Dorsey ordered petitioner to file an expert report by May 15, 2017 

addressing the issue of whether K.S. is experiencing speech and cognitive impairments, and if so, 

how those impairments are related to K.S.’s ITP. Doc 33, at 2-3. Petitioner never filed an expert 

report in accordance with the Order of February 23, 2017. 

On February 23, 2017, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. 

During a status conference on May 22, 2017, the undersigned explained she believes this 

is a good case for settlement and ordered petitioner to file the individualized education plans 

(“IEP”) created for K.S. as well as K.S.’s speech therapy records. 

On June 12, 2017, petitioner’s counsel said during a status conference that she would like 

to have a neuropsychologist test K.S. to see if he has any cognitive delays that were not noted in 

his IEP. 

On July 12, 2017, the undersigned held a status conference and ordered petitioner to file 

K.S.’s medical records from his visit to a pediatric neurologist by September 7, 2017 and make a 

demand on respondent by September 8, 2017. 
3

On September 7, 2017, the undersigned granted petitioner’s motion for an extension of 

time until November 9, 2017 to file K.S.’s medical records and a status report saying she made a 

demand. Petitioner filed nothing by November 9, 2017. 

On November 15, 2017, the undersigned issued her first Order to Show Cause in this case 

due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey her Order of September 7, 2017. The 

undersigned ordered petitioner to file K.S.’s medical records, make a demand on respondent, and 

file a status report stating she did so, or to move for an extension of time by November 29, 2017. 

On November 28, 2017, petitioner filed a status report saying K.S. was unable to obtain 

additional medical treatment and petitioner made a demand on respondent on November 27, 

2017. 

The undersigned held a status conference on December 28, 2017, during which she 

ordered petitioner to send respondent a letter from her pediatric neurology expert (“the letter”) 

discussing K.S.’s need for additional speech therapy, the relationship between K.S.’s speech 

deficit and ITP, and any other issues respondent raised during a status conference on the same 

day by January 8, 2018. According to respondent, petitioner never sent him the letter. 

On February 5, 2018, the undersigned learned that petitioner’s counsel has moved to 

another law firm and ordered petitioner’s counsel to file a notice of change of address and 

employer by February 12, 2018. The undersigned’s law clerk emailed petitioner’s counsel 

regarding the same matter on the same day. Petitioner neither filed a notice of change of address 

and employer nor contacted the undersigned’s Chambers by February 12, 2018. 

In her second Order to Show Cause dated February 12, 2018, the undersigned ordered 

petitioner to send respondent the letter and file a notice of change of address and employer by 

February 20, 2018. If she did neither, the undersigned would dismiss the case. Petitioner did not 

file anything by February 20, 2018.

DISCUSSION

Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), the undersigned can dismiss a petition based on 

petitioner’s failure to prosecute and/or failure to obey orders. Petitioner’s counsel failed to 

prosecute and failed to obey Orders on four occasions: (1) Chief Special Master Dorsey’s Order 

of February 23, 2017; (2) the undersigned’s Order of September 7, 2017; (3) the undersigned’s 

Order of December 28, 2017; and (4) the undersigned’s Order to Show Cause dated February 12, 

2018. 

This undersigned DISMISSES this petition for failure to prosecute and failure to obey 

the above-mentioned Orders, under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1). 

CONCLUSION
4

The petition is DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to 

RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2018 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.