Scalesci v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
Date FiledAugust 4, 2026
Docket23-2004V
JudgeChristian J. Moran
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
*************************
CARMEN SCALESCI, * No. 23-2004V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: July 9, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*************************
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ,
for petitioner;
Parisa Tabassian, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION 1
Petitioner, Carmen Scalesci, filed a petition for compensation on November
17, 2023, alleging that the influenza vaccination she received on November 20,
2020 caused her to suffer from vaccine-induced left-sided sensorineural hearing
loss and paresthesia or, in the alternative, that the vaccine significantly aggravated
these conditions. On June 24, 2026, Ms. Scalesci filed a motion for a decision
dismissing her petition.
1
Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must
be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’
website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance
with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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), the parties have 14
days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted
on the website.
1
I. Procedural History
Ms. Scalesci filed her petition on November 17, 2023, alleging that the
influenza vaccination she received on November 20, 2020 caused her to suffer
from vaccine-induced left-sided sensorineural hearing loss and paresthesia or, in
the alternative, that the vaccine significantly aggravated these conditions. She
submitted medical records over the next year and a half.
On June 23, 2025, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that
compensation be denied. Respondent argued that Ms. Scalesci had not met the
severity requirement for the paresthesia claim, and had not presented preponderant
evidence to establish causation-in-fact or significant aggravation claims for either
the left-sided sensorineural hearing loss or paresthesia. Respondent also requested
several additional medical records. The deadline for expert reports was suspended
pending the filing of these records. Order, issued June 25, 2025. Ms. Scalesci
filed a statement of completion on February 9, 2026. Respondent filed an
amended Rule 4(c) Report on March 6, 2026, again recommending that
compensation be denied and maintaining that Ms. Scalesci had neither presented
sufficient evidence to establish that she satisfied the severity requirement for the
paresthesia claim, nor had she met her burden to show causation-in-fact or
significant aggravation for her claimed injuries.
A deadline of April 20, 2026 was set for Ms. Scalesci’s expert report. See
Order, issued Feb. 12, 2026; Order (non-PDF), issued March 12, 2026. On April
16, Ms. Scalesci moved for an additional 60 days to file her report, stating that her
expert had withdrawn for reasons unrelated to the case. The order was denied
without prejudice to renew, as Ms. Scalesci had not provided enough information
to demonstrate that she has acted with diligence. Order, issued April 23, 2026.
Ms. Scalesci was instructed that, in a renewed motion, she should state when the
original expert was retained and when they communicated their intent to withdraw,
as such information will help establish good cause for the extension. Ms. Scalesci
was given a deadline of May 4, 2026, to renew her motion.
Ms. Scalesci did not renew her motion. However, on June 16, 2026, she
filed another motion for a 60-day extension of time to file an expert report. Ms.
Scalesci stated that, “Pursuant to the April 23, 2026 Court Order, Petitioner’s
Expert Report is due on June 19, 2026,” and requested a new deadline of August
18, 2026. Ms. Scalesci further explained that she had engaged an expert, but the
expert would be out of the office for the next few weeks.
2
In light of the lack of diligence, Ms. Scalesci’s motion was denied. Order,
issued June 17, 2026. The case would instead proceed to briefing, with a deadline
of August 17, 2026 for Ms. Scalesci’s brief. However, Ms. Scalesci instead filed a
motion to dismiss her case on June 24, 2026.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Ms. Scalesci filed medical records in support of her claim, but
she did not file an expert report. Ms. Scalesci now wishes to have her claim
dismissed. Given Ms. Scalesci’s clear intent that a judgment issue in this case, the
undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” Here, Ms. Scalesci did not retain an expert to support her
claim that her November 2020 vaccination caused or significantly aggravated her
left-sided sensorineural hearing loss and paresthesia. Therefore, there is
insufficient evidence to support a finding of vaccine-causation or aggravation.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
3