VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00096
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00096
Petitioner: GMG
Filed: 2019-01-18
Decided: 2020-01-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-01-19
Condition: difficulty walking, pain in his extremities, acute rash, and arthralgias
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners Matthew and Raygan Golitko alleged that their son, GMG, suffered difficulty walking, pain in his extremities, acute rash, and arthralgias following an influenza vaccination on January 19, 2016. The respondent argued that petitioners failed to establish the six-month sequelae requirement under the Vaccine Act. Medical records indicated symptom resolution by March 8, 2016, contradicting petitioners' affidavits alleging prolonged symptoms. Petitioners failed to provide additional objective evidence to support their claims by court-ordered deadlines and did not respond to an Order to Show Cause. Special Master Katherine E. Oler dismissed the case on January 10, 2020, for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute, finding that petitioners' claims alone were insufficient to overcome the medical record evidence and that they failed to comply with court orders. No specific theory of causation or expert testimony was detailed in the public decision, and the outcome was dismissal.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00096-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-01-10
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/31/19) regarding 17 DECISION of Special Master, Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00096-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0096V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTHEW GOLITKO and RAYGAN *
GOLITKO, Parents and Natural Guardians *
of GMG on behalf of GMG, *
* Special Master Oler
Petitioner, * Filed: October 31, 2019
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal of Petition; Failure to Prosecute;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Insufficient Proof; Vaccine Act; Denial
* Without Hearing.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Thomas Dassow, Hovde Dassow & Deets, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE1
On January 18, 2019, Matthew Golitko and Raygan Golitko (“Petitioners”) filed a petition
for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition, ECF No.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided
by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), 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 Decision in its present form will be available. Id.
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 1:19-vv-00096-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 5
1. Petitioners allege that their son, G.M.G., developed several injuries, including difficulty
walking, pain in his extremities, acute rash, and arthralgias, as a result of an influenza (“flu”)
vaccination received on January 19, 2016. Id. at 1.
I. Procedural History
On January 28, 2019, Petitioners filed several medical records, an affidavit by G.M.G.’s
mother, Raygan Golitko (“Ms. Golitko”), and photographs of G.M.G.’s alleged injuries. Ex. 1-6.
In lieu of his status report, Respondent filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause (“Resp’t’s
Mot.”) on April 23, 2019. ECF No. 10. In that motion, Respondent argued that Petitioners had not
established that G.M.G. received his vaccination on January 19, 2016. Id. at 1. Additionally,
Respondent stated that Petitioners had not established six months sequelae of G.M.G.’s injuries,
as required by 42 U.S.C §300aa-11(c)(1)(D). Id at 3. Respondent referred to medical visits from
February 1, 2016 onwards that noted G.M.G.’s reaction as resolved. Id.
On May 7, 2019, Petitioners filed their response to Resp’t’s Mot (“Pet’r’s’ Resp.”), along
with an additional affidavit from Ms. Golitko and medical records. ECF No. 11. In that response,
Petitioners addressed Respondent’s concerns regarding both the proof of vaccination and the six-
month severity requirement. Id. Petitioners argued that the most recent medical records filed
clearly indicate January 19, 2016 as date of vaccination. Id. at 1. Second, Petitioners stated that
G.M.G.’s allergic symptoms “clearly continued over the next five (5) months,” as evidenced by
Ms. Golitko’s affidavit. Id. at 2.
On May 14, 2019, Respondent filed his reply (“Resp’t’s Rep.”). ECF No. 12. Respondent
stated that he was satisfied that Petitioners had provided proof of vaccination. Id. However,
Petitioners still had not met the six-month severity requirement, because no corroborating medical
records had been filed. Id.
I held a status conference on May 31, 2019. Order deferring ruling on Motion for Order to
Show Cause (“Order”), ECF No. 13 at 1; see also Minute Entry for 6/6/2019. I informed the
parties that I agreed with Respondent’s most recent assessment that the Vaccine Act’s statutory
six-month severity requirement was not met. Id. Petitioner’s counsel requested additional time to
seek more evidence in support of the fact that G.M.G. experienced symptoms for more than six
months. Id. I granted Petitioners additional time and also informed counsel that absent additional
objective evidence, Petitioners would not meet the six-month severity requirement, and counsel
should discuss dismissal of the petition with his clients. Id. I directed Petitioners to file their
additional evidence, or a motion for a decision dismissing their petition by July 15, 2019. Id. at 2.
Petitioners did not file any documents or evidence by their deadline.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00096-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 5
On July 25, 2019, I directed Petitioners to file their outstanding evidence or a status report
immediately. See Non-PDF Order of 7/25/2019. To date, Petitioners have not filed any additional
evidence or the status report that I ordered.
Following Petitioners’ missed deadline, on August 15, 2019, I issued an Order to Show
Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof.
ECF No. 14. Petitioners were directed to file a brief or a motion for a decision dismissing their
petition by October 15, 2019. Id. at 3. To date, Petitioners have not filed a response to the Order
to Show Cause.
On October 29, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, stating that Petitioners’ claims
should be dismissed for a failure to prosecute. ECF No. 16.
II. Assessment of Case
A. Insufficient Proof
G.M.G.’s medical records do not indicate a continuation of symptoms past March 8, 2016.
On January 19, 2019, G.M.G. received his vaccination. ECF No. 11-1 at 3. On January 28, 2016,
G.M.G. presented with rash and joint pain to IUH North Hospital (“IUH”). G.M.G.’s condition
improved, and he was discharged on January 30, 2016. G.M.G. subsequently presented again to
IUH on February 1, 2016 for worsening symptoms. After receiving treatment, he was discharged
the same day. Specifically, it was noted that “[h]e has had complete resolution of his arthralgia
and joint rash. He still has some uticaria on his legs and chest.” Ex. 3 at 89. Finally, during a visit
to Hazel Dell Pediatrics on March 8, 2016, G.M.G.’s treater noted that his “recent Arthus Type III
Hypersensitivity R[eaction]” was “now resolved.” Ex. 4 at 11.
Petitioners submitted affidavits authored by Ms. Golitko in support of the six-month
severity requirement. In her second affidavit, Ms. Golitko stated that G.M.G. continued to suffer
from “issues with grip strength and general soreness in his hand for several months,” and that
“weakness persisted… for almost a year.” ECF No. 11-2 at 3. These statements, however, directly
contradict the evidence in the medical records. There is no indication in the records of ongoing
sequelae of G.M.G.’s condition past March 8, 2016.
As I have previously articulated to Petitioners, I view contemporaneously-created medical
records to be highly persuasive, especially when the records are clear and consistent. Petitioners’
claims alone, without to some additional objective evidence, are not sufficient to overcome the
facts as recorded in the medical records. As such, Petitioners were directed in the Order to Show
Cause to provide reasoning as to why this case should not be dismissed for insufficient proof. As
discussed, no response was filed.
3

Case 1:19-vv-00096-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 5
B. Failure to Prosecute
Since Petitioners had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that G.M.G.’s injuries
met the six-month severity requirement, on May 31, 2019, I directed Petitioners to file additional
evidence supporting this issue or a motion for a decision dismissing this petition if no objective
evidence could be found. Order at 2. Petitioners did not file any documents or evidence by their
deadline.
Again, on July 25, 2019, I ordered Petitioners to file their overdue evidence or a status
report. Petitioners did not comply with this order.
On August 15, 2019, I issued an Order to Show Cause and detailed for Petitioners my
assessment of the case. ECF No. 14. I cautioned them regarding missed deadlines and clarified
that a failure to respond to my order will be interpreted as a failure to prosecute their claim, and
the petition would be dismissed. Id. at 4. Petitioners did not file a response to my Order to Show
Cause.
III. Conclusion
It is Petitioners’ obligation to follow court orders. Failure to follow court orders, as well
as failure to file motions or other required documents, can result in dismissal of a petitioner’s
claim. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of HHS, 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) aff’d per
curiam without opin.; Sapharas v. Sec’y of HHS, 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 21(b).
Specifically, Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1) provides that a “special master or the court may dismiss a
petition or any claim therein for failure of the petitioner to prosecute or comply with these rules or
any order of the special master or the court.” Since May 31, 2019, Petitioners have failed to
comply with my numerous orders to produce the necessary records or a brief detailing their
position.
Further, to receive compensation under 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 one of his vaccinations, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 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 or her claims alone. Rather, the
petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical
expert. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for
Petitioners to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners’ claim, therefore, cannot succeed and must
be dismissed.
4

Case 1:19-vv-00096-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 5
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof and a failure to prosecute. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
5