GMG v. HHS - Influenza, difficulty walking, pain in his extremities, acute rash, and arthralgias (2020)

Matthew and Raygan Golitko, parents and natural guardians of GMG, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 18, 2019. They alleged that their son, GMG, developed difficulty walking, pain in his extremities, acute rash, and arthralgias as a result of an influenza vaccination received on January 19, 2016.

Petitioners submitted initial medical records and affidavits. The respondent argued that the petitioners had not established proof of vaccination and, more significantly, had not met the six-month sequelae requirement mandated by the Vaccine Act.

Petitioners responded, asserting that the medical records clearly indicated the January 19, 2016 vaccination date and that GMG's symptoms continued for five months, supported by an affidavit from Ms. Golitko.

The respondent acknowledged proof of vaccination but maintained that the six-month severity requirement was not met due to a lack of corroborating medical records. During a status conference on May 31, 2019, Special Master Katherine E.

Oler agreed that the six-month severity requirement was not met and granted petitioners additional time to seek more objective evidence, warning that failure to do so would likely result in dismissal. Petitioners did not file any additional evidence by the July 15, 2019 deadline.

On July 25, 2019, the Special Master again ordered petitioners to file the overdue evidence or a status report, which they failed to do. Consequently, on August 15, 2019, the Special Master issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof, setting an October 15, 2019 deadline for a response.

Petitioners did not respond to this order. The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 29, 2019, citing failure to prosecute.

In her decision dated January 10, 2020, Special Master Oler noted that GMG's medical records showed resolution of symptoms by March 8, 2016, contradicting Ms. Golitko's affidavits claiming symptoms persisted for months.

The Special Master emphasized the persuasive nature of contemporaneous medical records over petitioners' claims alone, especially without additional objective evidence. The decision highlighted petitioners' failure to comply with court orders, including the deadline to produce evidence and the response to the Order to Show Cause.

Citing Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1) and the requirement for proof beyond petitioners' claims, the Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute. The public decision was not to be published but was posted on the court's website.