VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00790
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00790
Petitioner: Carol Culwell
Filed: 2019-05-30
Decided: 2024-10-15
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-05-26
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Carol Culwell filed a claim on May 30, 2019, alleging that she suffered transverse myelitis as a result of a seasonal influenza vaccination she received on May 26, 2016. The case was reassigned to Special Master Daniel T. Horner on August 28, 2019. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on September 16, 2021, recommending against compensation. Initially, petitioner Culwell provided an expert medical opinion supporting her claim, filing an expert report on January 11, 2023. However, the respondent filed two expert reports in rebuttal on May 30, 2023. Subsequently, on September 15, 2024, petitioner Culwell filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating that after reviewing the respondent's expert reports and re-reviewing her MRI scans, her own expert could no longer support the transverse myelitis diagnosis underlying her claim. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine. This case proceeded as an off-Table claim, as no Table injury was alleged or supported by evidence. To prove causation in fact for an off-Table claim, a petitioner must show by preponderant evidence a medical theory connecting the vaccination and the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical records, or treatments related to Ms. Culwell's condition. Petitioner's expert report, which initially supported her claim, was disclaimed regarding her specific diagnosis after reviewing rebuttal reports and her MRI scans. The Special Master noted that the remaining record did not contain preponderant evidence that petitioner's condition was vaccine-caused. Consequently, Special Master Horner granted petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss the claim, dismissing the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. The decision was issued on October 15, 2024. Petitioner was represented by Curtis R. Webb, and respondent was represented by Neil Bhargava. The Special Master was Daniel T. Horner.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Carol Culwell, age 44, received a seasonal influenza vaccine on May 26, 2016, and alleged transverse myelitis (TM) as an off-Table injury. The claim was filed on May 30, 2019. Petitioner initially provided an expert report supporting her claim, but after respondent's rebuttal reports and a re-review of her MRI scans, her expert could no longer support the TM diagnosis. The public decision does not name the experts or detail the mechanism of injury. Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss on September 15, 2024, citing the lack of expert support for her diagnosis. Special Master Daniel T. Horner granted the motion on October 15, 2024, dismissing the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, as the record did not preponderate in favor of a vaccine-caused injury. Petitioner was represented by Curtis R. Webb, and respondent by Neil Bhargava.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00790-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-15
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/16/2024) regarding 61 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (sh). Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00790-UNJ Document 62 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-790V
Filed: September 16, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
Special Master Horner
CAROL CULWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Curtis R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Monmouth, OR, for petitioner.
Neil Bhargava, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On May 30, 2019, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (2012), alleging that she suffered transverse
myelitis (“TM”) as a result of her seasonal influenza (“flu”) vaccination that she received
on May 26, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, petitioner’s petition is
now dismissed.
I. Procedural History
This case was reassigned to the undersigned on August 28, 2019. (ECF Nos.
11-12.) Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on September 16, 2021, recommending
against compensation. (ECF No. 35.) Petitioner initially had a supportive expert
medical opinion to support her claim, having filed an expert report on January 11, 2023.
(ECF No. 47; Exs. 11.) However, respondent subsequently filed two expert reports in
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken 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 document 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.
1

Case 1:19-vv-00790-UNJ Document 62 Filed 10/15/24 Page 2 of 3
rebuttal on May 30, 2023. (ECF Nos. 50-51; Exs. A-D.) Thereafter, on September 15,
2024, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss this case, explaining that after review of
respondent’s expert reports and a re-review of petitioner’s MRI scans, her expert could
no longer support the alleged transverse myelitis diagnosis underlying her claim. (ECF
No. 60.)
II. Discussion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a covered vaccine. See § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A); § 300aa-11(c)(1). In
this case, no “Table Injury” was alleged in this case nor was there any evidence in the
record to support such injury, leaving only a cause-in-fact claim. To satisfy her burden of
proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a
medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Vaccine Act prohibits the undersigned from ruling for petitioner based solely
on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
“Because causation is relative to the injury, a petitioner must provide a reputable
medical or scientific explanation that pertains specifically to the petitioner’s case,
although the explanation need only be ‘legally probable, not medically or scientifically
certain.’” Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (quoting Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548-49
(Fed. Cir. 1994)). Here, although petitioner has provided an expert opinion asserting
that the flu vaccine can cause transverse myelitis, her expert has disclaimed support for
petitioner’s own transverse myelitis diagnosis and the record evidence does not
otherwise preponderate in favor of such a diagnosis. Accordingly, petitioner’s expert
report is inapposite her own condition and does not support her burden of proof with
respect to causation in fact. The remaining record does not contain preponderant
evidence that petitioner’s condition was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.
Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this claim on September 15, 2024.
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), “[t]he special master or the court may dismiss a
petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special master
or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(3).” Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision
Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie
case of entitlement to compensation.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00790-UNJ Document 62 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 3
III. Conclusion
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
3