VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00552
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00552
Petitioner: Michael Rutz
Filed: 2018-04-17
Decided: 2020-07-13
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-11-12
Condition: biceps tendinitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael Rutz filed a claim alleging that he suffered right shoulder injuries, specifically biceps tendinitis, as a result of receiving Tdap and influenza vaccinations on November 12, 2016. He initially filed his petition on April 17, 2018, and later amended it to specify biceps tendinitis. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report recommending against compensation. Due to an inability to secure an expert report to support his claim, Mr. Rutz requested additional time to determine how to proceed. Subsequently, he filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, stating that an investigation revealed he would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. He understood that this dismissal would result in a judgment against him and end his rights in the Vaccine Program. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table injury or that a covered vaccine actually caused the injury, requiring a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. As Mr. Rutz's medical records did not substantiate his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and he did not provide a supporting medical opinion, the Special Master granted his motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement. The case was dismissed with judgment entered against the petitioner.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00552-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-07
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/13/2020) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (et) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00552-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-552V
Filed: July 13, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL RUTZ, Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
v. Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
Dismissing Petition; Tdap
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Vaccine; Influenza (flu) vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, Biceps tendinitis
Respondent.
Bridget Candance McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On April 17, 2018, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that he suffered right shoulder
injuries as a result of his receipt of the Tdap and influenza vaccinations on November
12, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 2019, petitioner amended his petition to allege
more specifically that he suffered biceps tendinitis as a result from his November 12,
2016 vaccinations. (ECF No. 24.) On June 4, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4 report,
recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 27.) On June 11, 2020, petitioner filed
a status report, stating that petitioner was unable to file an expert report to support his
claim and requested 30 days to inform the Court on how petitioner wishes to proceed.
(ECF No. 44.)
On July 9, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his Petition.
(ECF No. 45.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science
supporting his case has demonstrated that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled
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-00552-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 2
to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and that “to proceed further would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent and Vaccine
Program.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioner understands that a
decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment against
him. [Petitioner] has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the
Vaccine Program. Petitioner understands that he may apply for costs once his case is
dismissed and judgment is entered against him.” (Id. at 1.)
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). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from
ruling for petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
Petitioner’s medical records do not support his allegations by a preponderance of
the evidence and he did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of his
allegations. 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.
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.
2