VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00250
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00250
Petitioner: JARED EASTMAN
Filed: 2018-02-16
Decided: 2023-01-09
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2015-02-18
Condition: multiple symptoms including headaches, limb and join pain, numbness and tingling, weaknesses and decreased range of motion in extremities, gait disturbance, neck and back pain, altered mental status, seizures, and gastrointestinal issues. Several diagnoses have been discussed by his treating physicians including lupus, a thyroid disorder, peripheral neuropathy, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorder, connective tissue disorder, fibromyalgia and possible [chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”)]... Acute Transverse Myelitis.
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jared Eastman filed a petition alleging that a DTaP vaccination on February 18, 2015, caused him to develop multiple symptoms including headaches, limb and joint pain, numbness and tingling, weakness, decreased range of motion, gait disturbance, neck and back pain, altered mental status, seizures, and gastrointestinal issues. His treating physicians discussed diagnoses such as lupus, thyroid disorder, peripheral neuropathy, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorder, connective tissue disorder, fibromyalgia, and possible CIDP. An amended petition alleged peripheral neuropathy, Hashimoto’s disease, Bechet’s syndrome/vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, possible Crohn’s disease, lupus, and fibromyalgia. A second amended petition updated the diagnosis to Acute Transverse Myelitis. The respondent recommended against compensation. After several status conferences and orders for additional medical records and expert reports, the petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. The court noted that a petitioner must establish entitlement through a Table injury or by proving actual causation under Althen. Finding insufficient evidence to justify an award and in light of the petitioner's motion, the court dismissed the petition for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00250-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-09
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/7/2022) regarding 83 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (slw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00250-UNJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 7, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
JARED EASTMAN, * Unpublished
*
Petitioner, * No. 18-250V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal Decision; DTaP.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On February 16, 2018, Jared Eastman (“petitioner”), filed a petition in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner’s initial petition
alleged that as a result of receiving the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccination
February 18, 2015, he developed,
multiple symptoms including headaches, limb and join pain, numbness and
tingling, weaknesses and decreased range of motion in extremities, gait
disturbance, neck and back pain, altered mental status, seizures, and
gastrointestinal issues. Several diagnoses have been discussed by his treating
physicians including lupus, a thyroid disorder, peripheral neuropathy, rheumatoid
arthritis, seizure disorder, connective tissue disorder, fibromyalgia and possible
[chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”)]. Petitioner has
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision
is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed
redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision
will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100
Stat. 3755, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. §300aa of the Act.

Case 1:18-vv-00250-UNJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 3
been diagnosed with autoimmune thyroiditis (Hashimoto’s disease) and other
contributing autoimmune conditions have been considered as possible diagnoses.
Petition at ¶ 8.
The case was reassigned to my docket on February 20, 2018. See Notice of Assignment
(ECF No. 4). Petitioner filed medical records from February 26, 2018, through May 29, 2019.
See generally (ECF Nos. 6, 14, 25, 27, 30, 31, 35). Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on July
29, 2019, wherein he alleged that the DTaP vaccination administered on February 18, 2015,
caused him to develop “peripheral neuropathy, Hashimoto’s disease, Bechet’s
syndrome/vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, possible Crohn’s disease, lupus, and fibromyalgia.”
Amended Petition at ¶ 7.
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on October 25, 2019, recommending against
compensation. Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Report (“Rept.”) (ECF No. 42). A telephonic status
conference was held on November 25, 2019, in which I ordered petitioner to file additional
medical records and a second amended petition. See Scheduling Order, November 27, 2019
(ECF No. 43). Petitioner filed another amended petition on August 6, 2020, with an updated
diagnosis of Acute Transverse Myelitis. Second Amended Petition at ¶ 8. (ECF No. 54). A
telephonic status conference was set on September 8, 2020, in which I ordered petitioner to file a
report from petitioner’s treating neurologist. See Scheduling Order, November 11, 2020 (ECF
No. 57). Petitioner filed an expert report on March 30, 2021. Petitioner (“Pet.”) Exhibits (“Ex.”)
42 (ECF No. 63). Respondent filed two expert reports on December 6, 2021, and January 24,
2022. Resp. Ex. A; Resp. Ex. C (ECF No. 69, 72).
A Rule 5 Status conference was held on April 26, 2022, wherein I ordered petitioner to
file a status report indicating his intent to continue to pursue his case in the program. See Rule 5
Order, April 29, 2022 (ECF No. 74). On July 18, 2022, petitioner filed a status report indicating
to the court his intention to continue pursuing his case in the program. (ECF No. 76). On
September 1, 2022, petitioner filed a supplemental expert report. Pet. Ex. 60 (ECF No. 78). On
October 25, 2022, petitioner filed a lengthy status report outlining petitioner’s proposed
diagnoses and the criteria to establish a diagnosis of Hashimoto’s encephalopathy. (ECF No. 80).
A telephonic status conference was set for October 26, 2022, in which I ordered petitioner to
consult with his expert for another supplemental report, or evaluation at a tertiary care center,
and if those options were not available to consider a voluntary dismissal. On December 6, 2022,
petitioner filed a motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 21(a), based on the
Court’s tentative findings and conclusions set forth in the Rule 5 Order.
A petitioner must establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program through
one of two ways. The first way is to establish that he or she suffered a “Table injury,” i.e., that
he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and subsequently developed a
corresponding injury within a corresponding period of time. § 300aa-11(c)(1). The second way
is to establish that the vaccine actually caused the onset or significant aggravation of a condition
in the vaccinee. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A). To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a
medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable
temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Althen v. Sec’y of Health &

Case 1:18-vv-00250-UNJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 3
Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The information in the record indicates
that there is insufficient evidence presented at this time to justify an award. Accordingly, in light
of petitioner’s motion requesting a decision dismissing her petition, a further investigation is
unwarranted. As such, the petition is hereby, DISMISSED.
This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).