VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00415
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00415
Petitioner: C.P.
Filed: 2018-08-22
Decided: 2025-06-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-03-25
Condition: autoimmune dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”), small fiber neuropathy, weight loss, inability to stand for long periods, and gastroparesis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
C.P., an adult, received an influenza vaccination on March 25, 2015. He alleged that this vaccination caused autoimmune dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), small fiber neuropathy, weight loss, inability to stand for long periods, and gastroparesis. The petition was initially filed on August 22, 2018. C.P. submitted medical records and expert reports, including those from neurologist Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne and physiologist Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, attempting to link his conditions to the vaccine. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed expert reports from neurologist Dr. Christopher Gibbons and immunologist Dr. Andrew MacGinnitie, which refuted the petitioner's claims. The court noted that no Table Injury was alleged and that the petitioner had not presented preponderant evidence to establish a causal link between the flu vaccine and his alleged injuries, citing prior decisions that rejected similar causal theories for POTS. Ultimately, C.P. filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition, acknowledging he would likely be unable to meet the requirements for compensation. The Special Master granted this motion, dismissing the petition and directing that judgment be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00415-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-20
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/22/2024) regarding 109 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (cd) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00415-UNJ Document 117 Filed 06/20/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-415V
C.P.,
Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
Filed: August 22, 2024
v.
Refiled as Redacted: June
20, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Robert Joel Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
DECISION1
On March 20, 2018, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (2012), alleging that he suffered
autoimmune dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”), small
fiber neuropathy, weight loss, inability to stand for long periods, and gastroparesis as a
result of his March 25, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1.)
I. Procedural History
This case initially assigned to another special master. (ECF Nos. 7, 20.)
Between March and October of 2018, petitioner filed medical records (ECF Nos. 4-6,
11, 13-19, 22-24, 26, 29, 31-33; Exs. 1-19, 23-42) and two declarations of petitioner
(ECF Nos. 10, 34; Exs. 22, 43). On February 8, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4
1 When this decision was originally filed the undersigned advised his intent to post it 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner
filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with petitioner’s name
reduced to initials. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been
made. This decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for
redaction.
1

Case 1:18-vv-00415-UNJ Document 117 Filed 06/20/25 Page 2 of 3
report, recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 39.) Thereafter, the case was
reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF Nos. 44-45.) Petitioner filed additional medical
records (ECF No. 54; Ex. 45) and an expert report by neurologist Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne
(ECF Nos. 57-61; Exs. 46-84). In response, respondent filed experts reports by
neurologist Dr. Christopher Gibbons and immunologist Dr. Andrew MacGinnitie. (ECF
No. 65; Exs. A-D.)
On June 29, 2021, I issued a Rule 5 Order wherein I discussed several critical
issues with petitioner’s claim that he seemed unlikely to be able to overcome. (ECF No.
66.) Thereafter, the experts engaged in another round of expert reports. (ECF Nos. 71-
73, 75, 80-81.) On September 28, 2023, petitioner filed an expert report by physiologist
Dr. Jesper Mehlsen. (ECF No. 99; Exs. 116-28.) Respondent filed responsive reports
by Drs. Gibbons and MacGinnitie on January 19, 2024. (ECF No. 101; Exs. G-I.) I then
provided further guidance to the parties in an order dated April 1, 2024, after petitioner’s
expert, Dr. Kinsbourne, became unavailable. (ECF No. 104.)
On August 19, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his
Petition. (ECF No. 108.) Petitioner indicated that his “review of the April1, 2024,
Scheduling Order, the case law, and an investigation of the facts and circumstances of
his case have demonstrated to the Petitioner that he will likely be unable to meet the
requirements imposed by the Court for compensation in the Vaccine Program.” (Id. at
1.) Petitioner further stated that his “attorney has advised the Petitioner that a decision
by the Special Master dismissing the Petition will result in a judgment against Petitioner.
His attorney has advised the Petitioner that such a judgment will terminate the
Petitioner’s rights in the VICP.” (Id. at 2.) Respondent opted not to file any response.
II. Discussion
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 § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A); § 300aa-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). No “Table Injury” was alleged in this case, nor was there any evidence in the
record to support such injury.
The Vaccine Act prohibits the undersigned from ruling for petitioner based solely
on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. § 300aa-
13(a)(1). The record does not contain preponderant evidence that petitioner’s alleged
injuries were vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related. Although petitioner offered
2

Case 1:18-vv-00415-UNJ Document 117 Filed 06/20/25 Page 3 of 3
expert medical opinions, none of the medical opinions provided persuasive evidence
supporting a finding in favor of entitlement. There have been a number of prior
decisions rejecting causal theories that have attempted to link the flu vaccine to POTS.
See, e.g., Specks v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-491V, 2023 WL 2947619
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 14, 2023); L.P. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
1278V, 2021 WL 2373863 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 26, 2021); E.S. v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 17-480V, 2020 WL 9076620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2020),
mot. for rev. den’d, 154 Fed. Cl. 149 (2021). In the instant case, petitioner has similarly
failed to preponderantly link the flu vaccine to his alleged injuries. Moreover,
respondent filed competing medical opinions persuasively refuting petitioner’s
allegations. See de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this claim on August 19, 2024.
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), “[t]he special master or the court may dismiss a
petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special master
or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(3).” Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision
Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie
case of entitlement to compensation.
III. Conclusion
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 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.
3