VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01460
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01460
Petitioner: JEFFERY SMITH
Filed: 2018-09-24
Decided: 2024-07-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-03
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jeffery Smith filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) caused by a flu vaccine received on October 3, 2016. After settlement discussions broke down, Respondent filed a report arguing entitlement should be denied due to insufficient evidence to rule out other causes. Both parties submitted expert reports. During a Rule 5 conference, the Special Master indicated a belief that Petitioner had a viral infection rather than dysautonomia. Following this, Petitioner requested a ruling on the record and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, stating he would be unable to prove entitlement. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the petition and ordering judgment against Petitioner, as he could not meet his burden of proof for either a Table Injury or an off-Table vaccine-caused injury.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01460-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-23
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/08/2024) regarding 107 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (saj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01460-UNJ Document 111 Filed 08/23/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1460V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
JEFFERY SMITH,
*
* Special Master Katherine E. Oler
Petitioner, *
*
v.
*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, * Filed: July 8, 2024
*
*
Respondent.
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Renée Ja Gentry, The Law Office of Renée J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
I. Procedural History
On September 24, 2018, Jeffery Smith (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging he suffered Guillain-Barré
syndrome (“GBS”) from the flu vaccine he received on October 3, 2016. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
Petitioner was in settlement discussions, which broke down around July 2022. ECF No.
82. On August 2, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that entitlement should be
denied. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, ECF No. 84. More specifically, Respondent stated that Petitioner failed
to rule out other possible causes in order to establish his prima facie case. Id. at 16.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it must be made publicly
accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine
Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that
statutory prefix).

Case 1:18-vv-01460-UNJ Document 111 Filed 08/23/24 Page 2 of 3
After Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Carlo
Tornatore on December 19, 2022. Ex. 51. On April 18, 2023, Respondent then filed an expert
report from Dr. Mark Bromberg. Ex. A. On August 21, 2023, Petitioner filed a responsive expert
report from Dr. Tornatore. Ex. 64. Respondent in turn filed a responsive expert report from Dr.
Bromberg on November 13, 2023. Ex. C.
I held a Rule 5 Conference on December 19, 2023, where I informed the parties that I
believed it was more likely than not that Petitioner had a viral infection, and not dysautonomia.
ECF No. 103 at 1. Afterwards, I ordered Petitioner to file a status report indicating how he would
like to proceed, and he filed a status report requesting a Ruling on the Record. ECF No. 104.
On April 10, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion requesting that his petition be
dismissed. He stated:
The Special Master’s findings in the Rule 5 status conference and Order (ECF No.
103) have demonstrated to the Petitioner that he will be unable to prove that he is
entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. In these circumstances, to
proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court,
the respondent, and the Vaccine Program. The Petitioner understands that a
decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment
against him. He has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in
the Vaccine Program.
ECF No. 106 at 1.
II. Conclusion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to her vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine
Program award based solely on his claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either
medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, however,
there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner’s
claim therefore cannot succeed and, in accordance with his motion, must be dismissed. §
11(c)(1)(A).
2

Case 1:18-vv-01460-UNJ Document 111 Filed 08/23/24 Page 3 of 3
As such, IT IS ORDERED THAT,
Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing his petition is GRANTED and the petition is
hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
3