VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01433
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01433
Petitioner: Estate of Brian Walker
Filed: 2018-09-20
Decided: 2020-09-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-09-22
Condition: demyelinating condition affecting her lower extremities
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Cynthia Hart, as personal representative of the estate of Brian Walker, filed a petition for compensation alleging that Brian Walker suffered a demyelinating condition affecting her lower extremities after receiving an influenza vaccination on September 22, 2015. The petitioner later filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition, stating that the records did not reflect a timely relationship between the vaccination and the onset of injury. Respondent had no objection to the motion. The court noted that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor persuasive evidence that the alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine, as the petitioner had not provided an expert opinion and the medical records did not support a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss for insufficient proof. The case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01433-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-09-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/10/2020) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. (Main Document 48 replaced on 9/15/2020 to correct clerical errors.) (dls)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01433-UNJ Document 48 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2
Corrected
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 10, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Estate of BRIAN WALKER *
by its Personal Representative *
CYNTHIA HART, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 18-1433
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza (“flu”);
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scott W. Rooney, Nemes, Rooney P.C., Farmington Hills, MI, for petitioner.
Jennifer L. Reynaud, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL1
On September 20, 2018, Cynthia Hart, as personal representative of the estate of Brian
Walker (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program).2 Petitioner alleges that Brian Walker
suffered a demyelinating condition affecting her lower extremities after receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccination on September 22, 2015. Petition at ¶ 4-11 (ECF No. 1); Petitioner’s Motion
(“Pet. Mot.”) for Dismissal at ¶ 2 (ECF No. 44). The information in the record, however, does
not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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-1 to -34 (2012)
(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
300aa.

Case 1:18-vv-01433-UNJ Document 48 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2
On May 28, 2020, petitioner filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition under
Vaccine Rule 21(a). In the motion, petitioner states that the records do not reflect a timely
relationship between the vaccination and on-set of injury. Pet. Mot. at ¶ 5. Respondent has no
objection to petitioner’s motion. Id. at ¶ 6.
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving
either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). To satisfy their 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).
An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Brian Walker suffered a
“Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that Mr. Walker’s
alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine. In this case, petitioner has not provided an expert
opinion and the medical records do not support a proximate temporal relationship between
vaccination and injury.
Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient
proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).
2