Bekiaris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 14-750

Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging that a third dose of the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine on August 25, 2011 caused urticaria, pruritus, rashes, anxiety/hyperactivity, and permanent disfigurement.
Petitioner's record submissions and affidavit were repeatedly late and incomplete; some medical records were never produced.
Respondent opposed compensation in a Rule 4(c) report. The special master gave petitioner one year (to July 13, 2016) to file an expert report; none was ever filed.
Petitioner later sought discovery from the vaccine manufacturer; the motion was denied as delay-driven and unsupported by the record.
The court ordered petitioner to produce medical records from her current doctor by November 17, 2017 and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Petitioner did not comply.
The special master dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute and for lack of medical records and expert opinion establishing causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner proved causation in fact linking Gardasil to her skin and related injuries	Gardasil caused petitioner’s rashes and related symptoms; requested discovery would help establish a theory	Medical records do not support Gardasil causation; no expert opinion provided	Petitioner failed to meet burden; no medical theory or expert proof filed — causation not established
Whether case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute	(implicit) petitioner sought more time and discovery to develop the record	Respondent relied on procedural rules and the incomplete record; special master noted petitioner’s repeated delays	Dismissed under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1) for failure to prosecute after missed deadlines and noncompliance
Whether discovery from manufacturer was warranted	Discovery would provide formulation data to enable an expert opinion linking vaccine to injury	Discovery unnecessary given medical records and petitioner’s delay; motion characterized as dilatory	Motion denied — discovery not justified given record deficiencies and delay
Whether decision can be based solely on petitioner’s allegations	Petitioner requested relief based on her reported symptoms and history	Respondent cited Vaccine Act bar on rulings based only on unsubstantiated allegations	Special master applied statutory standard: cannot rule for petitioner without supporting medical records/opinion; dismissal affirmed

Althen v. Sec’y of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (establishes three-part test for causation-in-fact in vaccine cases)
Grant v. Sec’y of HHS, 956 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explains need for reputable medical/scientific support and that absence of other causes is insufficient)
Shyface v. Sec’y of HHS, 165 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (requires petitioner to show the vaccine was a substantial factor in causing the injury)