Mulroy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-1324
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Petitioner Stephanie Mulroy filed a Vaccine Act petition as legal representative of her sister Joanne Arena, alleging the flu vaccine given on Nov. 8, 2013 caused Arena’s death on Nov. 10, 2013.
- Petitioner filed medical records and an expert report from Dr. Laurel Waters; respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation and submitted an expert report from Dr. Noel Rose.
- The special master ordered supplemental expert reports; petitioner sought to obtain a second expert (Dr. Douglas Miller) but reported Dr. Miller could not provide a supportive opinion after file review.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss, stating investigation and expert review showed she could not prove entitlement to compensation.
- The special master found no evidence of a Table Injury and that the record lacked persuasive proof that the influenza vaccine caused Arena’s death; medical records and submitted expert opinions were insufficient.
- The petition was dismissed for insufficient proof and judgment was to be entered unless petitioner sought review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement standard under Vaccine Act | Mulroy contended the flu vaccine caused Arena’s death, supporting entitlement to compensation | HHS opposed compensation; argued evidence did not support causation or a Table Injury | Held: Petitioner failed to meet statutory entitlement standards; no Table Injury alleged or shown and causation not established |
| Sufficiency of expert opinion/evidence | Mulroy submitted an expert report but could not obtain a supportive supplemental opinion from Dr. Waters or Dr. Miller | Respondent’s expert disagreed with petitioner’s causation theory; the record lacked a competent, supportive medical opinion | Held: Expert evidence was insufficient; dismissal for failure to provide necessary medical proof |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the decision did not cite any reported judicial opinions; it relied on Vaccine Act standards and the evidentiary record.
