Jennifer Schaefer v. HHS - Influenza, abdominal pain, chronic pain, vomiting, left rib pain, neck pain, leg numbness, numbness and tingling in her left arm, severe upper thoracic chest pain, symptoms of shingles, fatigue, insomnia, weakness, post-traumatic neuralgia, lymphadenopathy, numbness and tingling in her lips and tongue, facial pain, hyperesthesia, paresthesias, polyarthritis, polyneuritis, autoimmune neuritis, hot flashes, sharp foot pain, radiculitis, glossopharyngeal neuralgia, burning sensations in her feet and ankles, small fiber neuropathy, and polyneuritis neuralgia (2016)

Jennifer Schaefer filed a petition on June 19, 2015, alleging that immediately after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 26, 2012, she experienced a wide range of symptoms including abdominal pain, chronic pain, vomiting, left rib pain, neck pain, leg numbness, numbness and tingling in her left arm, severe upper thoracic chest pain, symptoms of shingles, fatigue, insomnia, weakness, post-traumatic neuralgia, lymphadenopathy, numbness and tingling in her lips and tongue, facial pain, hyperesthesia, paresthesias, polyarthritis, polyneuritis, autoimmune neuritis, hot flashes, sharp foot pain, radiculitis, glossopharyngeal neuralgia, burning sensations in her feet and ankles, small fiber neuropathy, and polyneuritis neuralgia. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Petitioner was represented by Darren Keith Short, and respondent was represented by Lisa A. Watts.

Special Master Laura D. Millman presided over the case.

The public decision does not describe the petitioner's age at vaccination or provide details about the specific formulation of the influenza vaccine. Petitioner submitted medical records, including a statement from neurologist Dr.

Venkat K.C. Rao, who initially suggested small fiber neuropathy "status-post flu shot" despite normal electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction study findings.

However, Dr. Rao later stated in his notes that the studies showed no evidence of sensorimotor polyneuropathy, myopathy, or radiculopathy, and subsequently wrote to petitioner's counsel on May 30, 2013, stating that her workup showed no abnormalities and all her symptoms were subjective.

None of petitioner's medical records diagnosed her with small fiber neuropathy. The Special Master noted that Dr.

Rao's conclusion of small fiber neuropathy contradicted his own study findings and was not plausible. Petitioner's personal care physician, Dr.

Tanin Parich, noted in records prior to vaccination that petitioner had experienced flu symptoms, anxiety, and gastroenteritis, and had dislocated ribs. After vaccination, petitioner reported neck and upper back pain, and tingling sensations.

She also reported to Dr. Parich that she had received the flu vaccination on October 26, 2012, with no side effects.

Later, she reported joint pains and nerve problems, and a physician thought she had shingles without a rash. Another physician, PA Elaine Rynders, diagnosed generalized pain with numbness and tingling, and noted petitioner's belief that her symptoms began around October 16, 2012, ten days before her vaccination.

Dr. Priya Kumaraguru diagnosed generalized paresthesias, bilateral axillary pain, fibromyalgia, low-grade fever, and possible sequelae of the flu vaccine, also noting petitioner's resistance to a fibromyalgia diagnosis and suggesting an underlying component of anxiety and stress.

Dr. Rao diagnosed petitioner with polyneuritis and small fiber neuritis, and later, a variant of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), unspecified neuralgia, neuritis, and radiculitis, despite normal EMG and nerve conduction studies.

The Special Master granted petitioner's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The petition was dismissed for failure to make a prima facie case of causation in fact.

The Special Master found that the medical records and Dr. Rao's opinions did not support petitioner's allegations, and that petitioner's statement to Dr.

Parich about having no side effects after vaccination cast doubt on her subsequent claims of an immediate reaction. The award amount was not applicable as the case was dismissed.