Richard L. White v. HHS - Influenza, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) / chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) variant: chronic inflammatory sensorimotor polyradiculopathy (CIS(M)P) (2023)

On April 25, 2018, Richard White filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he received an influenza vaccine on October 12, 2016, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) or a variant thereof, specifically chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) with a sensorimotor variant (CIS(M)P). Petitioner was 50 years old at the time of vaccination and had a past medical history of low back pain, chronic hip pain, and knee pain.

His initial symptoms, including numbness, tingling, and weakness in his lower extremities, began approximately eight days after vaccination. The case proceeded as an off-Table claim, as CIDP is not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table.

Petitioner presented expert testimony from Dr. Jeffrey A.

Rumbaugh, who opined that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's condition through molecular mimicry. Respondent presented expert testimony from Dr.

Subramaniam Sriram and Dr. Vinay Chaudhry, who opined that Petitioner's symptoms were more likely attributable to pre-existing spinal stenosis and that the evidence did not support a diagnosis of GBS or CIDP, nor a causal link to the vaccine.

A trial was held on September 16, 2022. The Special Master denied entitlement, finding that Petitioner failed to prove he had CIS(M)P according to established diagnostic criteria and therefore could not establish causation.

The Special Master noted that Petitioner did not meet the criteria for CISP as set forth in Ong & Cassidy, specifically lacking the criterion of sensory symptoms without weakness, and that the evidence did not preponderantly support the diagnosis of CIS(M)P or a causal link to the flu vaccine. The Special Master also found that Petitioner had not demonstrated that the flu vaccine can cause CIS(M)P.

On review, the United States Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master's decision, finding it was not arbitrary and capricious. The Court agreed that Petitioner did not meet the diagnostic criteria for his alleged condition and that his efforts to show causation collapsed due to the failure to establish the nature of his condition.

The petition was denied.