VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01629
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01629
Petitioner: Dr. Timothy Moore
Filed: 2018-10-23
Decided: 2020-08-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-02
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Moore filed a petition on October 23, 2018, on behalf of her deceased husband, Dr. Timothy Moore, alleging that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on December 2, 2016. The petition was filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Special Master's decision notes that the information in the record did not demonstrate entitlement to compensation under the Program. Petitioner later filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition on July 9, 2020, conceding that she would likely be unable to establish entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable and a waste of resources. Respondent had no objection to the dismissal. To receive compensation, Petitioner was required to prove either a "Table Injury" corresponding to the vaccination or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The Special Master found that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record lacked persuasive evidence that the alleged GBS was caused by the flu vaccine. The decision stated that medical records must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician, and in this case, the medical records were insufficient to prove the claim, and no supportive expert opinion was filed. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Patricia Moore alleged that her deceased husband, Dr. Timothy Moore, developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on December 2, 2016. The petition was filed on October 23, 2018. The Special Master, Herbrina Sanders, dismissed the case for insufficient proof. The decision noted that the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" nor persuasive evidence that the alleged GBS was caused by the flu vaccine. The medical records were deemed insufficient to prove the claim, and no expert opinion was filed. Petitioner conceded she would likely be unable to establish entitlement. The case was dismissed on August 13, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01629-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/16/2020) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01629-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: July 16, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PATRICIA MOORE, on behalf of her *
deceased husband, Dr. Timothy Moore, * No. 18-1629V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DISMISSAL1
On October 23, 2018, Patricia Moore (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on
behalf of her deceased husband, Dr. Timothy Moore, under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012).
Petitioner alleged that Dr. Moore developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of the
influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on December 2, 2016. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The information
in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On July 9, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 31. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “she will likely be unable to
establish that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 3. She continued,
“to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court and the
Vaccine Program.” Id. Respondent had no objection to Petitioner’s motion. Id.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that Dr.
Moore suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
1 This decision shall be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002, 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete
medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the
rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the I
agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be
deleted from public access.

Case 1:18-vv-01629-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 2
corresponding to the vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A), 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
that Petitioner’s alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim,
and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this case must
be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2