VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00372
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00372
Petitioner: Jacob Booth
Filed: 2018-03-09
Decided: 2022-05-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-09-28
Condition: transverse myelitis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 9, 2018, the mother of Jacob Booth, a minor at the time, filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on his behalf. The claim alleged that Jacob suffered transverse myelitis (TM) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) as a result of an influenza vaccination he received on September 28, 2015. The case was initially assigned to Special Master Moran. The respondent filed a Rule 4 report on September 10, 2018, recommending against compensation. The petitioner subsequently filed expert reports from Dr. Kinsbourne and Dr. Gershwin. The case was reassigned to Special Master Daniel T. Horner on August 27, 2019. Following the reassignment, the parties exchanged additional rounds of expert reports. On March 24, 2022, Jacob Booth reached the age of majority, and a motion to amend the caption was granted, substituting him as the petitioner. On March 28, 2022, the petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his Petition, stating he did not wish to pursue a claim in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against him, ending his rights in the program. The respondent did not oppose this motion. Special Master Horner granted the petitioner's motion, dismissing the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. Judgment was entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. The attorneys involved were Bridget C. McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP, for the petitioner, and Mitchell Jones of the U.S. Department of Justice, for the respondent. The Special Master was Daniel T. Horner.

Theory of causation field:
The petitioner alleged that an influenza vaccination on September 28, 2015, caused transverse myelitis (TM) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). The case was dismissed upon the petitioner's motion after reaching the age of majority, stating he did not wish to pursue the claim. The Special Master granted the dismissal for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. The public decision does not detail the specific medical theory of causation, expert opinions, or the proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the alleged injuries, as the case was dismissed prior to a full adjudication on the merits of causation. The attorneys involved were Bridget C. McCullough for the petitioner and Mitchell Jones for the respondent. Special Master Daniel T. Horner issued the decision on May 10, 2022.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00372-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-05-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/29/2022) regarding 75 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (mly). Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00372-UNJ Document 78 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-372V
Filed: March 29, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
JACOB BOOTH, Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v.
Dismissing Petition; Influenza
(“Flu”) vaccine; Transverse
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
myelitis (“TM”); Acute
HUMAN SERVICES,
disseminated encephalomyelitis
(“ADEM”)
Respondent.
Bridget C. McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA,, for petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On March 9, 2018, petitioner’s mother filed a claim on behalf of her minor child2
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012),
alleging that he suffered transverse myelitis (“TM”) and acute disseminated
encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) as a result of his September 28, 2015, influenza
vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) This case was initially assigned to Special Master Moran.
(ECF No. 4.) On September 10, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4 report,
recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 16.) Subsequently petitioner filed
expert reports from Dr. Kinsbourne and Dr. Gershwin. (ECF Nos. 35, 41.)
On August 27, 2019, this case was reassigned to my docket. (ECF No. 44.)
Thereafter the parties filed additional rounds of expert reports. (ECF No. 47, 49, 50, 52,
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.
2 On March 24, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Caption, as the minor on whose behalf the
petition was filed, reached the age of majority. (ECF No. 72.) On March 24, 2022, petitioner’s Motion
was granted, substituting him as petitioner. (ECF No. 73.)

Case 1:18-vv-00372-UNJ Document 78 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
57, 59.) On November 10, 2020, I held a status conference where I discussed several
outstanding questions in this case. (ECF No. 61.) Subsequently both parties submitted
a final round of expert reports. (ECF No. 63, 66.)
On July 23, 2021, an entitlement hearing was scheduled to commence on
December 15, 2022. (ECF No. 71.) However, on March 28, 2022, after reaching the
age of majority and being substituted as petitioner, petitioner filed a Motion for a
Decision Dismissing his Petition. (ECF No. 74.) Petitioner indicated that he “does not
wish to pursue a claim in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” (Id.) Petitioner
further stated that he “understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing his
petition will result in a judgment against him. He has been advised that such a judgment
will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” (Id.) Petitioner represents that his
motion is unopposed by respondent. (Id.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table
– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy his burden of
proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a
medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Based on my review of the record compiled to date, petitioner has not supported
the allegations of his petition by a preponderance of the evidence.
In light of all of the above, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for
Decision Dismissing his Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a
prima facie case of entitlement to compensation.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2