VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00777
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00777
Petitioner: Ronald Discher
Filed: 2018-06-01
Decided: 2019-11-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: polymyalgia rheumatica and rheumatoid arthritis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On June 1, 2018, Ronald Discher filed a petition for vaccine compensation alleging that an influenza vaccine caused him to develop polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The public decision does not describe the specific date of vaccination or the petitioner's age at the time of vaccination. The record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to an award under the Program. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth noted that to receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record lacked persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused or vaccine-related. The public decision states that the petition cannot be based solely on the petitioner's claims and must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. In this case, there were insufficient medical records, and the petitioner offered no medical opinion supporting a finding of entitlement. Consequently, Special Master Roth determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a "Table Injury" or that the injuries were "actually caused" by a vaccination. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The decision was issued on November 12, 2019. Petitioner counsel was Ronald Homer, Esq., and respondent counsel was Lisa Watts, Esq. The decision was designated "unpublished" but posted on the Court of Federal Claims's website.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Ronald Discher alleged that an influenza vaccine caused polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The petition was filed on June 1, 2018, and the decision was issued on November 12, 2019, by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The public decision does not specify the vaccine date, age at vaccination, or provide details on the onset of symptoms, medical records, specific diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert opinions. The Special Master found no evidence of a "Table Injury" and insufficient medical records or competent physician opinions to support the claim that the vaccine actually caused the alleged injuries. Therefore, the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00777-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-12-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/12/2019) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (km) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00777-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-777V
Filed: November 12, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RONALD DISCHER, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”)
* Vaccine; Polymyalgia
v. * Rheumatica (“PMR”);
* Rheumatoid Arthritis (“RA”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Lisa Watts, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1
Roth, Special Master:
On June 1, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),2 alleging that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
caused him to develop polymyalgia rheumatica (“PMR”) and rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). The
information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On
November 11, 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision requesting that his case be
dismissed. ECF No. 31.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision
will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s
inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party
has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is
a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes
medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:18-vv-00777-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 2
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to his vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that
petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.
Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the petitioner’s
claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion
of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records
supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however,
has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination.
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
2