VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00404
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00404
Petitioner: Thomas Bedell
Filed: 2019-03-19
Decided: 2020-10-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-08-15
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 19, 2019, Christine Bedell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of her son, Thomas Bedell, who was allegedly injured by an influenza vaccine administered on August 15, 2013, resulting in Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Petitioner acknowledged that neither she nor the respondent could obtain any record confirming the vaccine administration. Without this documentation, Petitioner understood she could not prove entitlement to compensation. Consequently, on September 25, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence existed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. Petitioner was advised that a decision dismissing her petition would result in a judgment against her, ending all her rights in the Vaccine Program. To receive compensation, Petitioner must prove that her son received a vaccine covered by the program and then suffered either a "Table Injury" corresponding to a covered vaccine or an injury actually caused by a covered vaccine. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical tests, or treatments related to Thomas Bedell's alleged GBS. The record shows no evidence that Thomas Bedell received an influenza vaccine on August 15, 2013, as alleged. Under the Vaccine Act, a petition must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion. The record in this case does not contain sufficient medical records or a medical opinion to demonstrate that Petitioner received or was injured by a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied the claim and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, as there was no evidence that Thomas Bedell received the alleged vaccine or suffered an injury covered by the Vaccine Program. Judgment was entered against the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel was Lawrence R. Cohan. Respondent's counsel was Heather Lynn Pearlman.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that Thomas Bedell suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving an influenza vaccine on August 15, 2013. The petition was filed on March 19, 2019, by Christine Bedell on behalf of her son. The case was dismissed because neither the petitioner nor the respondent could obtain any record confirming vaccine administration. Petitioner acknowledged that without this documentation, she could not prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, Petitioner must prove receipt of a covered vaccine and a subsequent "Table Injury" or vaccine-caused injury. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or medical opinions presented. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, dismissed the petition for insufficient proof, stating there was no evidence of vaccine receipt or a covered injury. Judgment was entered against the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel was Lawrence R. Cohan, and respondent's counsel was Heather Lynn Pearlman. The decision date was October 27, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00404-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-10-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/25/2020) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00404-UNJ Document 34 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0404V
UNPUBLISHED
THOMAS BEDELL, an incompetent, by Chief Special Master Corcoran
and through his parent, natural
guardian and legal guardian, Filed: September 25, 2020
CHRISTINE BEDELL,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Petitioner, Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
v. Dismissing the Petition; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Syndrome (GBS)
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On March 19, 2019, Christine Bedell filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), on behalf of her son, Thomas Bedell. Petitioner alleges that her son
suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving an influenza vaccine on August
15, 2013. Petition at 1.
On September 25, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition,
acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it 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), 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00404-UNJ Document 34 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 2
compensation. ECF No. 32.3 Petitioner acknowledged in her motion that neither she nor
Respondent has been unable to obtain “any record confirming vaccine administration.”
Id. at ¶ 1. “Without this supporting documentation, Petitioner understands that she will
be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id.
Petitioner indicated that she “understands that a decision against her by the Special
Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgement against her . . . [and] has been
advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶
3.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that her son
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A)
and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record shows there is no evidence that Petitioner
received an influenza vaccine on August 15, 2013 as alleged.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner received or
was injured by a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program. For these reasons, and in
accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and
this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Although Petitioner filed her motion using the CM/ECF event for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 21(a), it is clear that Petitioner intended to file a motion to dismiss which would result in a judgement.
Petitioner altered the docket text to include the description “MOTION to Dismiss”, and the title of her motion
is “Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Petition.” Furthermore, in the motion, Petitioner
acknowledges that her request will result in a decision (as opposed to an order concluding proceedings)
and later judgement which she can reject to preserve any future civil claim.
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2