Lyle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •             In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    Filed: June 12, 2020
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    LESA N. LYLE, on behalf of her minor *
    son, E.B.G.,                         *               UNPUBLISHED
    *
    Petitioner,             *               No. 19-574V
    *
    v.                                   *               Special Master Dorsey
    *
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                  *               Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                  *               Her Petition; Meningococcal Vaccine;
    *               Encephalopathy.
    Respondent.             *
    *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Milton Clay Ragsdale, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioner.
    Lisa Ann Watts, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    DECISION1
    On April 17, 2019, Lesa Lyle (“petitioner”), on behalf of her minor child E.B.G., filed a
    petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the
    Program”)2 alleging that E.B.G. suffered encephalopathy as a result of meningococcal
    vaccination administered on April 22, 2016. Petition at 1. The information in the record,
    however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
    On June 12, 2020, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that “[a]n
    investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated to petitioner that she
    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.
    1
    will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and thus,
    “to proceed any further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the court,
    respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision Dismissing the
    Petition, filed June 12, 2020, at ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 33). 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 judgment will end all of her rights under the Vaccine Act. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner
    states that she intends to protect her right to file a civil action and to elect to reject the vaccine
    program judgment to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5.
    To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that E.B.G.
    suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
    to the vaccination, or (2) that E.B.G. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-574

Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey

Filed Date: 7/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2020