VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01364
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01364
Petitioner: Prentissa Rodrigue
Filed: 2017-09-28
Decided: 2020-07-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-11-01
Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis (CIDP)
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Prentissa Rodrigue alleged that the influenza vaccine she received on November 1, 2016, caused her to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis (CIDP). She claimed to have started experiencing numbness and tingling within a couple of weeks of the vaccination. The Secretary of Health and Human Services disputed these claims. Ms. Rodrigue's primary medical support for causation came from her neurologist, Dr. Trahant, who initially noted symptoms within a few weeks of vaccination but later revised his opinion based on affidavits from Ms. Rodrigue and her family. However, the court found that Dr. Trahant's revised opinion relied on uncredited assertions and conflicted with the established medical records. A hearing determined that Ms. Rodrigue's neurologic decline began on January 30, 2017, which was significantly later than her alleged onset and contradicted Dr. Trahant's opinion. The court also found Dr. Trahant's records to contain inaccuracies. Because Ms. Rodrigue's sole expert support was based on assertions that conflicted with the court's findings of fact and lacked corroboration from medical records, she failed to meet her burden of proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, her petition for compensation was denied.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01364-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-01-09
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/22/2019) regarding 67 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (hh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 71 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PRENTISSA RODRIGUE, *
* No. 17-1364V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: October 22, 2019
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Tentative Finding of Facts
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Frank Lamothe, Lamothe Law Firm, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for petitioner;
Lynn Schlie, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED TENTATIVE RULING FINDING FACTS1
Special masters may provide tentative findings and conclusions during the pendency of
litigation. See Vaccine Rule 5. In the undersigned’s estimation, the rules envision that tentative
findings before all the evidence is developed could facilitate formal and informal resolution of a
claim. The undersigned offers the following tentative findings and conclusions so that the
parties may be able to focus their efforts on those issues that are material and remain disputed.
These findings are tentative insomuch as they are subject to change upon the presentation of
additional evidence or argument.
The parties dispute when Ms. Rodrigue began to experience significant neurologic
problems after her November 1, 2016 flu vaccination. A hearing was held on October 16-17,
2019, in New Orleans, Louisiana. See Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl.
775, 779-80 (2006) (noting the efficacy of holding a hearing in cases where testimony and
medical records conflict). Due to the effects of medication, Ms. Rodrigue did not testify.
However, Ms. Rodrigue called her husband, two daughters, and a neurologist who treated her
(Dr. Trahant). The Secretary called Ms. Rodrigue’s primary care physician, Dr. Acosta. The
undersigned has considered all the evidence including the testimony from that hearing.
1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its
website (https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). This posting will make the
decision accessible to anyone via the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have
14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information
described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will
appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 71 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to well-established standards for determining when events did or did not
happen, see Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 247, 251-52 (2019),
appeal docketed, No. 2019-1753 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2019), the undersigned finds how the
evidence preponderates. In setting forth the findings, the undersigned also cites to the primary
evidence that is the basis for the finding. The undersigned recognizes that not all evidence is
entirely consistent with these findings. See Doe 11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 601
F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (ruling that the special master’s fact-finding was not arbitrary
despite some contrary evidence). Indeed, it is the presence of inconsistent evidence that dictated
a proceeding to resolve factual disputes.
After considering the witnesses’ testimony as well as the documentary evidence, the
undersigned finds that Ms. Rodrigue first experienced a dramatic decline in her neurologic
function on approximately January 30, 2017. The primary reasons supporting this finding are
as follows:
1. Before receiving the flu vaccination on November 1, 2016, Ms. Rodrigue was generally
active. She suffered from chronic cervical pain and lumbar pain following motor vehicle
accidents. See exhibit 5 at 101 (Dr. Trahant letter to insurance company), exhibit 16 at 4.
These pre-existing problems complicate Ms. Rodrigue’s case in that the neurologic
problems that she eventually experienced were not fresh. She had grown accustomed to
dealing with pain.
2. With her husband Ms. Rodrigue visited Dr. Acosta on January 11, 2017. Exhibit 7 at 4-
6.2 Dr. Acosta’s notes do not memorialize any complaints about (a) an inability to walk
down the stairs in her house, (b) an inability to walk from her bed to the bathroom to use
the toilet, (c) an inability to participate in holiday functions such as cooking, and (d) an
inability to use normal utensils for feeding. Dr. Acosta testified that if Ms. Rodrigue or
her husband told him any of these problems, he would have documented them. Dr.
Acosta appeared to be a conscientious doctor, who wanted to keep medical records that
were as accurate as possible within the frustrating limitations of the electronic medical
records system. Dr. Acosta’s testimony—that if he had been told about significant
problems, he would have documented them—is credited.
3. Dr. Acosta’s notes indicate that Ms. Rodrigue or her husband told him she was having
“chronic pain.” This report is consistent with her long-standing cervical and lumbar
issues. Ms. Rodrigue’s ongoing chronic pain also can explain why Mr. Rodrigue
2 Dr. Acosta was Ms. Rodrigue’s doctor for her diabetes. See exhibit 7 at 26 (April 5,
2016 appointment). She missed her regularly scheduled appointment on October 25, 2016.
Exhibit 7 at 13-14. Consistent with this history, Dr. Acosta stated that the critical January 11,
2017 appointment appeared to be for routine care. However, Mr. Rodrigue testified that the
appointment was scheduled to address Ms. Rodrigue’s acute needs. The only acute need noted
by Dr. Acosta was recurrent nose bleeds. Exhibit 7 at 4. Determining the purpose of this
appointment is not necessary to determine when Ms. Rodrigue’s more significant neurologic
pain began.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 71 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 4
purchased a neck and shoulder wrap at Walgreens a few days after Thanksgiving (exhibit
24) and why Ms. Rodrigue wore a homemade sling at Christmas (exhibit 25).
4. On January 18, 2017, and January 23, 2017, Ms. Rodrigue saw Nurse Practitioner
Saavedra for, predominantly, cough and congestion. Exhibit 15. Ms. Saavedra
diagnosed Ms. Rodrigue as suffering from sinusitis and bronchitis. Id. at 10.3 Neither
Ms. Rodrigue nor her daughter who accompanied her to this appointment communicated
that Ms. Rodrigue was having such significant problems walking that Ms. Rodrigue
required assistance from the fire department to leave her house.
a. The lack of a complaint from Ms. Rodrigue or her daughter at both appointments
is significant because if Ms. Rodrigue were experiencing significant problems in
conducting usual activities like walking, bathing, or toileting, then someone
would have communicated these problems during these encounters with a medical
professional.
b. Notations in the records from Ms. Saavedra that Ms. Rodrigue denies neurologic
problems such as gait abnormality (exhibit 15 at 4, 8) carry less weight. As Dr.
Acosta explained with respect to his medical records, determining which parts of
an electronic medical record reflect information communicated to and recorded by
a medical professional is difficult. For Ms. Saavedra’s medical record, the
evidence is not clear whether comments such as “denies gait abnormality” reflects
a default entry in an electronic medical record. However, to the extent that the
electronic medical records from Ms. Saavedra’s office can be given any weight,
the notation is consistent with an onset after January 23, 2017.
5. Ms. Rodrigue saw Dr. Trahant on March 8, 2017. Dr. Trahant recorded the following
history: “[1] In mid-January, she had pneumonia and the flu, and [2] one week later she
received a pneumonia vaccine and a flu vaccine. [3] One week later after receiving the
vaccines, she developed generalized weakness, first in her legs, and then in her upper
extremities. [4] She also started with severe burning in her hands and her feet.” Exhibit
16 at 4. The history recorded by Dr. Trahant is not entirely accurate.
a. For sentence [1], it appears that Ms. Rodrigue was not diagnosed as suffering
from pneumonia and the flu. See footnote 3 above. The undersigned recognizes
that people who are not medical professionals might use “pneumonia” or “the flu”
to describe a respiratory ailment when a medical professional might use a
different term, such as “sinusitis” or “bronchitis.” It is accurate to say that in mid-
January, Ms. Rodrigue suffered from sinusitis and bronchitis.
b. For sentence [2], Ms. Rodrigue did not receive the pneumonia vaccine and the flu
vaccine at the same time. Ms. Rodrigue received the flu vaccine on November 1,
2016. Exhibit 3. She also received a dose of the Prevnar vaccine at Dr. Acosta’s
3 Although Mr. Rodrigue and other witnesses stated that Ms. Saavedra diagnosed Ms.
Rodrigue as also suffering from the flu and pneumonia, the documentary basis for this testimony
is not readily apparent within exhibit 15.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 71 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 4
office on January 11, 2017. Exhibit 7 at 4-6. Regardless, the Prevnar vaccination
was one week before (not week after) Ms. Rodrigue developed respiratory
problems.
c. For sentence [3], the statement “one week after receiving the vaccines” cannot be
accurate in that Ms. Rodrigue did not receive two vaccines (plural) at the same
time. As explained above, it is also not likely that Ms. Rodrigue developed
generalized weakness “one week” after the Prevnar vaccine because if she had,
Ms. Rodrigue would have communicated this problem to Ms. Saavedra. Instead,
the more likely explanation is that Ms. Rodrigue developed generalized weakness
approximately one week after having respiratory problems.
d. For sentence [4], this sentence is accurate. In addition to having generalized
weakness, Ms. Rodrigue also experienced a burning feeling in her hands and feet.
6. Mr. Rodrigue adequately explained the delay in treatment from the end of January to
beginning of March. Although Ms. Rodrigue first started to experience a significant
deterioration in her neurologic functioning on January 30, 2017, she saw Dr. Trahant on
March 8, 2017. This delay in treatment is approximately 5.5 weeks.
a. Ms. Rodrigue and her husband may have been slow to realize that the generalized
weakness differed from previous cervical and lumbar issues as well as any
weakness caused by her sinusitis and bronchitis.
b. Scheduling an appointment with Dr. Trahant may have taken some time, in part,
because Dr. Trahant may have been out of his office during a portion of the Mardi
Gras season in February 2017.
7. Dr. Trahant’s August 15, 2018 letter (exhibit 27) carries little evidentiary weight. Dr.
Trahant did not record information in context of providing medical services. The letter is
directed toward litigation. While Dr. Trahant accepted the accuracy of information
contained in affidavits, this task is ultimately for the special master as finder of fact. See
Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore,
before preparing his August 15, 2018 letter, Dr. Trahant did not consider other sources of
information such as Dr. Acosta’s January 11, 2017 report or the notes from Ms.
Saavedra’s January 2017 appointments.
A status conference to discuss these tentative findings of fact is scheduled for Monday,
November 4, 2019, at 2:00 P.M. Eastern Time. If the parties retain any witnesses to opine
about causation, the parties must present this Tentative Ruling to any potential experts. See
Burns, 3 F.3d 415.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Andrew Schick, at (202) 357-6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01364-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-02-13
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/10/2020) regarding 72 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (hh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 76 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PRENTISSA RODRIGUE, *
* No. 17-1364V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: January 10, 20201
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Finding of Facts
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Frank Lamothe, Lamothe Law Firm, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for petitioner;
Lynn Schlie, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING FACTS2
The parties dispute when Ms. Rodrigue began to experience significant neurologic
problems after her November 1, 2016 flu vaccination. A hearing was held on October 16-17,
2019, in New Orleans, Louisiana. See Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl.
775, 779-80 (2006) (noting the efficacy of holding a hearing in cases where testimony and
medical records conflict). Due to the effects of medication, Ms. Rodrigue did not testify.
However, Ms. Rodrigue called her husband, two daughters, and a neurologist who treated her
(Dr. Trahant). The Secretary called Ms. Rodrigue’s primary care physician, Dr. Acosta. The
undersigned has considered all the evidence including the testimony from that hearing.
Pursuant to well-established standards for determining when events did or did not
happen, see Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 247, 251-52 (2019),
1 The undersigned initially issued tentative findings of fact on October 22, 2019. The
undersigned has deleted references to the tentativeness of the findings of fact, including the first
paragraph of the October 22, 2019 ruling.
2 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its
website (https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). This posting will make the
decision accessible to anyone via the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have
14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information
described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will
appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 76 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 4
appeal docketed, No. 2019-1753 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2019), the undersigned finds how the
evidence preponderates. In setting forth the findings, the undersigned also cites to the primary
evidence that is the basis for the finding. The undersigned recognizes that not all evidence is
entirely consistent with these findings. See Doe 11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 601
F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (ruling that the special master’s fact-finding was not arbitrary
despite some contrary evidence). Indeed, it is the presence of inconsistent evidence that dictated
a proceeding to resolve factual disputes.
After considering the witnesses’ testimony as well as the documentary evidence, the
undersigned finds that Ms. Rodrigue first experienced a dramatic decline in her neurologic
function on approximately January 30, 2017. The primary reasons supporting this finding are
as follows:
1. Before receiving the flu vaccination on November 1, 2016, Ms. Rodrigue was generally
active. She suffered from chronic cervical pain and lumbar pain following motor vehicle
accidents. See exhibit 5 at 101 (Dr. Trahant letter to insurance company), exhibit 16 at 4.
These pre-existing problems complicate Ms. Rodrigue’s case in that the neurologic
problems that she eventually experienced were not fresh. She had grown accustomed to
dealing with pain.
2. With her husband Ms. Rodrigue visited Dr. Acosta on January 11, 2017. Exhibit 7 at 4-
6.3 Dr. Acosta’s notes do not memorialize any complaints about (a) an inability to walk
down the stairs in her house, (b) an inability to walk from her bed to the bathroom to use
the toilet, (c) an inability to participate in holiday functions such as cooking, and (d) an
inability to use normal utensils for feeding. Dr. Acosta testified that if Ms. Rodrigue or
her husband told him any of these problems, he would have documented them. Dr.
Acosta appeared to be a conscientious doctor, who wanted to keep medical records that
were as accurate as possible within the frustrating limitations of the electronic medical
records system. Dr. Acosta’s testimony—that if he had been told about significant
problems, he would have documented them—is credited.
3. Dr. Acosta’s notes indicate that Ms. Rodrigue or her husband told him she was having
“chronic pain.” This report is consistent with her long-standing cervical and lumbar
issues. Ms. Rodrigue’s ongoing chronic pain also can explain why Mr. Rodrigue
purchased a neck and shoulder wrap at Walgreens a few days after Thanksgiving (exhibit
24) and why Ms. Rodrigue wore a homemade sling at Christmas (exhibit 25).
3 Dr. Acosta was Ms. Rodrigue’s doctor for her diabetes. See exhibit 7 at 26 (Apr. 5,
2016 appointment). She missed her regularly scheduled appointment on October 25, 2016.
Exhibit 7 at 13-14. Consistent with this history, Dr. Acosta stated that the critical January 11,
2017 appointment appeared to be for routine care. However, Mr. Rodrigue testified that the
appointment was scheduled to address Ms. Rodrigue’s acute needs. The only acute need noted
by Dr. Acosta was recurrent nose bleeds. Exhibit 7 at 4. Determining the purpose of this
appointment is not necessary to determine when Ms. Rodrigue’s more significant neurologic
pain began.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 76 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4. On January 18, 2017, and January 23, 2017, Ms. Rodrigue saw Nurse Practitioner
Saavedra for, predominantly, cough and congestion. Exhibit 15. Ms. Saavedra
diagnosed Ms. Rodrigue as suffering from sinusitis and bronchitis. Id. at 10.4 Neither
Ms. Rodrigue nor her daughter who accompanied her to this appointment communicated
that Ms. Rodrigue was having such significant problems walking that Ms. Rodrigue
required assistance from the fire department to leave her house.
a. The lack of a complaint from Ms. Rodrigue or her daughter at both appointments
is significant because if Ms. Rodrigue were experiencing significant problems in
conducting usual activities like walking, bathing, or toileting, then someone
would have communicated these problems during these encounters with a medical
professional.
b. Notations in the records from Ms. Saavedra that Ms. Rodrigue denies neurologic
problems such as gait abnormality (exhibit 15 at 4, 8) carry less weight. As Dr.
Acosta explained with respect to his medical records, determining which parts of
an electronic medical record reflect information communicated to and recorded by
a medical professional is difficult. For Ms. Saavedra’s medical record, the
evidence is not clear whether comments such as “denies gait abnormality” reflects
a default entry in an electronic medical record. However, to the extent that the
electronic medical records from Ms. Saavedra’s office can be given any weight,
the notation is consistent with an onset after January 23, 2017.
5. Ms. Rodrigue saw Dr. Trahant on March 8, 2017. Dr. Trahant recorded the following
history: “[1] In mid-January, she had pneumonia and the flu, and [2] one week later she
received a pneumonia vaccine and a flu vaccine. [3] One week later after receiving the
vaccines, she developed generalized weakness, first in her legs, and then in her upper
extremities. [4] She also started with severe burning in her hands and her feet.” Exhibit
16 at 4. The history recorded by Dr. Trahant is not entirely accurate.
a. For sentence [1], it appears that Ms. Rodrigue was not diagnosed as suffering
from pneumonia and the flu. See footnote 3 above. The undersigned recognizes
that people who are not medical professionals might use “pneumonia” or “the flu”
to describe a respiratory ailment when a medical professional might use a
different term, such as “sinusitis” or “bronchitis.” It is accurate to say that in mid-
January, Ms. Rodrigue suffered from sinusitis and bronchitis.
b. For sentence [2], Ms. Rodrigue did not receive the pneumonia vaccine and the flu
vaccine at the same time. Ms. Rodrigue received the flu vaccine on November 1,
2016. Exhibit 3. She also received a dose of the Prevnar vaccine at Dr. Acosta’s
office on January 11, 2017. Exhibit 7 at 4-6. Regardless, the Prevnar vaccination
4 Although Mr. Rodrigue and other witnesses stated that Ms. Saavedra diagnosed Ms.
Rodrigue as also suffering from the flu and pneumonia, the documentary basis for this testimony
is not readily apparent within exhibit 15.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 76 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4
was one week before (not one week after) Ms. Rodrigue developed respiratory
problems.
c. For sentence [3], the statement “one week after receiving the vaccines” cannot be
accurate in that Ms. Rodrigue did not receive two vaccines (plural) at the same
time. As explained above, it is also not likely that Ms. Rodrigue developed
generalized weakness “one week” after the Prevnar vaccine because if she had,
Ms. Rodrigue would have communicated this problem to Ms. Saavedra. Instead,
the more likely explanation is that Ms. Rodrigue developed generalized weakness
approximately one week after having respiratory problems.
d. For sentence [4], this sentence is accurate. In addition to having generalized
weakness, Ms. Rodrigue also experienced a burning feeling in her hands and feet.
6. Mr. Rodrigue adequately explained the delay in treatment from the end of January to
beginning of March. Although Ms. Rodrigue first started to experience a significant
deterioration in her neurologic functioning on January 30, 2017, she saw Dr. Trahant on
March 8, 2017. This delay in treatment is approximately 5.5 weeks.
a. Ms. Rodrigue and her husband may have been slow to realize that the generalized
weakness differed from previous cervical and lumbar issues as well as any
weakness caused by her sinusitis and bronchitis.
b. Scheduling an appointment with Dr. Trahant may have taken some time, in part,
because Dr. Trahant may have been out of his office during a portion of the Mardi
Gras season in February 2017.
7. Dr. Trahant’s August 15, 2018 letter (exhibit 27) carries little evidentiary weight. Dr.
Trahant did not record information in the context of providing medical services. The
letter is directed toward litigation. While Dr. Trahant accepted the accuracy of
information contained in affidavits, this task is ultimately for the special master as finder
of fact. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, before preparing his August 15, 2018 letter, Dr. Trahant did not consider
other sources of information such as Dr. Acosta’s January 11, 2017 report or the notes
from Ms. Saavedra’s January 2017 appointments.
If the parties retain any witnesses to opine about causation, the parties must present this
Ruling to any potential experts. See Burns, 3 F.3d 415.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Andrew Schick, at (202) 357-6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01364-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-28
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/01/2020) regarding 82 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (hh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PRENTISSA RODRIGUE, *
* No. 17-1364V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. * Filed: July 1, 2020
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement, influenza vaccine,
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * chronic inflammatory demyelinating
* polyneuritis (“CIDP”).
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Frank E. Lamothe, III, Lamothe Law Firm, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for petitioner;
Lynn C. Schlie, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Ms. Rodrigue alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
November 1, 2016, caused her to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating
polyneuritis (“CIDP”). Pet., filed Sep. 28, 2017. Ms. Rodrigue asserted that she
started to develop numbness and tingling within a couple of weeks of the
vaccination. Id. ¶ 2. The Secretary of Health and Human Services disputes these
claims. As explained below, Ms. Rodrigue has not established that she is entitled
to compensation.
I. Procedural History
Ms. Rodrigue filed her medical records, including records from a
neurologist, Daniel Trahant, who first saw her on March 8, 2017. Exhibit 16 at 4.
The Secretary questioned the accuracy of the history that Dr. Trahant obtained.
1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its
website. This posting will make the decision available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical
information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions
ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 4
Resp’t’s Rep., filed August 3, 2018, at 4 n.3 and 10. Thus, the onset of Ms.
Rodrigue’s symptoms was a key factual dispute.
After the Secretary’s report, Dr. Trahant wrote a letter to Ms. Rodrigue’s
attorney, stating that “After reviewing [the affidavits of her husband and daughter]
and the documentation of the influenza vaccine administered on November 1,
2016, . . . it is my opinion that, more likely than not, the influenza vaccine was the
cause of Ms. Rodrigue developing chronic inflammatory demyelinating
polyneuropathy.” Id. at 2. Dr. Trahant also sought to correct notations he made in
Ms. Rodrigue’s medical records, based entirely on contrary information provided
in the affidavits. Id. at 1-2. These original notations included inaccuracies related
to the vaccination itself, as well as the timing of previous symptoms and diagnoses.
Most importantly, the corrections contained in his letter relied only on information
supplied by Ms. Rodrigue and her fact witnesses.
A hearing was set to determine onset, as well as to address challenges Ms.
Rodrigue made regarding the accuracy of part of her primary care physician Dr.
Acosta’s records. The hearing was held on October 16-17, 2019, in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The undersigned found that Ms. Rodrigue began experiencing a decline
in neurologic function beginning on January 30, 2017. The undersigned also found
Dr. Acosta’s records to be accurate, and Dr. Trahant’s records to contain various
inaccuracies. Furthermore, the undersigned found Dr. Trahant’s August 15, 2018
letter to hold little evidentiary weight because Dr. Trahant prepared it in
anticipation of litigation, and accepted assertions obtained solely from Ms.
Rodrigue and her fact witnesses. Ruling Finding Facts, 2019 WL 7560056 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 22, 2019).
Following this fact ruling, Ms. Rodrigue first sought to obtain an expert
report and then decided not to retain an expert and instead to move for a ruling on
the record. In a status conference held on May 11, 2020, the parties confirmed that
they do not intend to submit any more filings. Thus, this matter is ripe for
consideration.
II. Standards for Adjudication
Petitioners are required to establish their cases by a preponderance of the
evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(1)(a). The preponderance of the evidence
standard requires a “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who has
the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly v. Sec’y of
2

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 4
Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted).
The special master may not rule in a petitioner’s favor based on petitioner’s
claim alone. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1); Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Instead, the causation assertion must
be substantiated by some additional medical records or medical opinion. Shyface,
165 F.3d at 1349.
Special masters retain significant discretion in deciding issues of fact,
including making credibility determinations. Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 416-17 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, these factual findings
once decided, are controlling to the extent that they are relevant to the entitlement
determination. Id. at 17.
III. Analysis
Ms. Rodrigue’s claim fails because her lone source of expert support for the
contention that her flu vaccine caused her CIDP relies on assertions not endorsed
by the Findings of Fact. Ms. Rodrigue asserted that her CIDP symptoms began
within a few weeks of her flu vaccination on November 1, 2016. Pet’r’s Br. at 1.
However, this conclusion was supported only by fact witness affidavits. The
undersigned found that conflicting information from doctors’ appointments
following her vaccination, in which no notations of these symptoms were made,
outweighed the testimony provided by Ms. Rodrigue and her family members.
The undersigned ultimately determined an onset date of January 30, 2017. Ruling
Finding Facts, 2019 WL 7560056, at *1.
Dr. Trahant used Ms. Rodrigue’s asserted onset time frame (that is, within
the first few weeks following her vaccination) as the basis for his opinion that her
flu vaccination caused CIDP. This is in direct conflict with the January 30, 2017
onset date found in the Ruling Finding Facts. Therefore, given that this expert
opinion relies on uncredited assertions, it is not a relevant or reliable source of
evidence for Ms. Rodrigue’s claim. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 416-17 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Dr. Trahant’s letter is the only expert
evidence put forth, and Ms. Rodrigue has elected not to provide additional expert
support. Therefore, because the undersigned may not rule in a petitioner’s favor
based on a petitioner’s contentions alone, without additional medical expert or
medical record support, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), the undersigned finds that Ms.
Rodrigue has not met her burden in showing that her flu vaccination caused her
CIDP.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01364-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 4
IV. Conclusion
Because Ms. Rodrigue’s sole source of expert support for causation between
her vaccination and CIDP relied on assertions in direct conflict with the Ruling
Finding Facts, the undersigned finds that Ms. Rodrigue has not proven by
preponderant evidence that the flu vaccination caused her CIPD. The Clerk’s
Office is instructed to enter judgment in accord with this decision unless a motion
for review is filed.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
2 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the
right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).
4