VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00533
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00533
Petitioner: George L. Hodgdon
Filed: 2018-04-12
Decided: 2020-04-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-09
Condition: Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
George L. Hodgdon filed a petition alleging that the influenza vaccine he received on October 9, 2016, caused him to develop Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially recommended that compensation be denied. The respondent later disputed the accuracy of Mr. Hodgdon's GBS diagnosis, the temporal association between his vaccination and condition, and suggested a prior gastrointestinal illness as a more likely cause. Mr. Hodgdon's medical records did not substantiate his allegations, and he was unable to secure adequate expert support for his claim. The court noted that while GBS is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table for the flu vaccine, Mr. Hodgdon did not contend that his condition's onset fell within the Table's prescribed timeframe, nor would the evidence support such a claim. Consequently, Mr. Hodgdon filed a status report indicating his intention to dismiss the petition due to a lack of expert support and an inability to prove entitlement to compensation. The court granted Mr. Hodgdon's motion for a decision denying compensation and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00533-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-04-16
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/20/2020) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (et) Service on parties made. (Main Document 50 replaced on 4/20/2020 to correct the filed date on the pdf) (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00533-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 3
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-533V
Filed: March 20, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
GEORGE L. HODGDON,
Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
v. Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain
Barre Syndrome (GBS); Dismissal
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Timothy James Lessman, Knutsen & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On April 12, 2018, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that the influenza vaccine he
received on October 9, 2016 caused him to suffer Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”).
(ECF No. 1.) On February 27, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4 report recommending
that compensation be denied. (ECF No. 22.) Ultimately, following an expert
presentation, respondent disputed the accuracy of petitioner’s alleged GBS diagnosis
as well as the alleged temporal association between petitioner’s condition and his
vaccination, and further contended, assuming petitioner did have GBS, that a prior
gastrointestinal illness was a more likely cause. (See ECF Nos. 32-34; Exs. A-D.)
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.

Case 1:18-vv-00533-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 3
On March 6, 2020, petitioner filed a status report indicating that due to a lack of
expert support, petitioner would be dismissing his petition.2 (ECF No. 43.)
Subsequently, on March 16, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for a decision by the
undersigned. (ECF No. 44.) He indicated that following an investigation into the facts
and science underlying his claim, he is unable to prove that he is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program. (Id.) He further indicated that he understood
that a decision dismissing the petition would result in a judgment against him, and that
he had been advised that “such a judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine
Program.”3 (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 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 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). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits me from ruling for
petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical
opinion.
Examination of the record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered
a “Table Injury.”4 Further, petitioner’s medical records do not support his allegations by
a preponderance of the evidence and he was unable to find adequate expert support for
his claim. Accordingly, I will GRANT petitioner’s motion for a decision denying
compensation and DISMISS this petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of
entitlement to compensation.
2 To be clear, petitioner did initially file an expert opinion from a medical doctor specializing in
occupational medicine and toxicology (ECF Nos. 24, 41); however, I held a Rule 5 status conference on
February 5, 2020, and explained that additional expert analysis relating to the neurological and
immunological aspects of the case would be necessary. (ECF No. 42.) Thereafter, petitioner indicated a
lack of expert support. (ECF No. 43.)
3 Petitioner further indicated that he intends to protect his right to pursue a civil action by rejecting the
judgment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2) of the Vaccine Act. (ECF No. 43, p. 2.)
4 Although petitioner alleged that he suffered GBS, which is an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table for
the flu vaccine (42 C.F.R. 100.3(a)(XIV), petitioner did not contend that the onset of his condition was
within the period of 3-42 days prescribed by the Table. Nor would the record evidence support such a
claim.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00533-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
This case is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
5 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