Kerrigan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-270

Petitioners James Kerrigan and Rosanna LePore filed a Vaccine Program petition on behalf of their minor child A.K., alleging MMR vaccine (administered March 18, 2013) caused gastrointestinal problems (including celiac disease/immune disorder) and regressive expressive language disorder, and that A.K. had an underlying metabolic disorder.
Medical records were filed and the parties completed the record; Respondent asked whether mitochondrial/metabolic specialist records existed.
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report contesting entitlement, noting Petitioners had not identified a defined, recognized injury and pointing to lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.
Special Master Corcoran held a status conference explaining the case’s similarity to other unsuccessful autism/regression claims and the low likelihood of success given the evidentiary gaps.
Petitioners moved unopposed to dismiss the petition for insufficient proof, acknowledging they could not meet the Vaccine Act burden and stating intent to elect civil litigation outside the Program; Respondent did not object.
The Special Master dismissed the petition for insufficient proof because the record contained neither a Table Injury nor persuasive medical opinion causally linking the MMR vaccine to A.K.’s alleged injuries, and entered judgment accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.K. suffered a Table Injury	MMR caused defined injury (gastrointestinal/neurologic/regressive disorder)	No evidence of any injury fitting the Vaccine Injury Table	No Table Injury found; record lacks basis for Table claim
Whether vaccine actually caused A.K.’s alleged injuries (causation-in-fact)	Vaccine caused or significantly aggravated A.K.’s conditions; petition relies on medical records and theory of regression	Insufficient proof; no medical expert opinion or persuasive evidence linking vaccine to injuries	Claim dismissed for failure to present medical records or expert opinion establishing causation
Whether dismissal is appropriate when petitioners move to withdraw after concluding they cannot prove entitlement	Petitioners requested dismissal acknowledging inability to prove entitlement and reserved right to elect civil action	Respondent did not object to dismissal	Court granted unopposed motion and dismissed for insufficient proof; petitioners may elect civil suit per statute

(No published judicial opinions with official reporter citations were cited in the decision.)