VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01881
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01881
Petitioner: Catherine Grace Boss
Filed: 2019-12-11
Decided: 2022-08-25
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2016-12-12
Condition: neurocardiogenic syncope, fatigue, chronic autoimmune demyelinating illness, shortness of breath, hypotension, dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), headache, migraines, neck pain, back pain, abdominal pain, pain disorder
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Catherine Grace Boss filed a petition alleging that she suffered injuries including neurocardiogenic syncope, fatigue, chronic autoimmune demyelinating illness, shortness of breath, hypotension, dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), headache, migraines, neck pain, back pain, abdominal pain, and pain disorder as a result of her December 12, 2016 Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Influenza (flu) vaccinations. The case progressed through various procedural steps, including the filing of medical records and expert reports by the petitioner. Respondent requested additional medical records and indicated these were necessary for their review. The petitioner was unable to obtain further records requested by respondent. During a Rule 5 conference, the Special Master indicated that the evidentiary record likely did not weigh in favor of the petitioner's claim and agreed with respondent that disclosure from petitioner's psychiatrist would be necessary. In response, the petitioner filed a status report indicating her intent to withdraw from the program and subsequently filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the petition with prejudice for insufficient proof, noting that no Table Injury was alleged and the record did not contain preponderant evidence indicating the injury was vaccine-caused. The decision also referenced prior cases rejecting causal theories linking the HPV vaccine to POTS and autonomic nervous system dysfunction.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01881-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/25/2022) regarding 72 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (amb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01881-UNJ Document 78 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1881V
Filed: July 25, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
Special Master Horner
CATHERINE GRACE BOSS,
Petitioner,
Motion to Dismiss; Postural
v.
Orthostatic Tachycardia
Syndrome (POTS); Human
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES,
Influenza (flu) Vaccine
Respondent.
Paul Adrian Green, Law Offices of Paul Green, Pasadena, CA, for petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On December 11, 2019, petitioner Catherine Grace Boss filed a petition for
compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-
34 (2018), alleging that she suffered injuries including neurocardiogenic syncope,
fatigue, chronic autoimmune demyelinating illness, shortness of breath, hypotension,
dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), headache,
migraines, neck pain, back pain, abdominal pain, pain disorder as a result of her
December 12, 2016 Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”) and Influenza (“flu”) vaccinations.
(ECF No. 1, p. 1.)
I. Procedural History
On December 30, 2019, petitioner filed a Statement of Completion. (ECF No. 5.)
This case was subsequently reassigned to my docket on January 27, 2020. (ECF No.
9.) Respondent filed a status report on March 2, 2020, requesting additional medical
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.
1

Case 1:19-vv-01881-UNJ Document 78 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 3
records from petitioner. (ECF No. 13.) On August 7, 2020, petitioner filed her
additional medical records, an affidavit, and a further Statement of Completion. (ECF
No. 16, 17.) Petitioner subsequently filed an expert report and the accompanying
medical literature on March 17, 18, and 22 of 2021. (ECF Nos. 27-55.)
Respondent was ordered to file his Rule 4 Report and any responsive expert
report(s). However, on May 10, 2021, respondent filed a motion to amend the schedule
and requesting several unredacted versions of records that had been previously filed
with redactions along with records from petitioner’s psychologist. (ECF No. 56.)
Respondent indicated these materials were necessary to his medical review. Petitioner
subsequently filed a statement from one of her psychologists counseling against the
requested disclosures. (ECF No. 62.) On April 12, 2022, petitioner filed a status report
indicating that she was unable to obtain any further records requested by respondent.
(ECF No. 66.)
On May 31, 2022, I held a Rule 5 conference where I explained that as it stood,
the evidentiary record likely did not weigh in favor of petitioner’s claim. (ECF No. 68.) I
further explained that I agreed with respondent that some form of disclosure from
petitioner’s psychiatrist would be necessary to his defense. (Id.) In response to my
Rule 5 order, petitioner filed a status report on June 16, 2022, indicating that she
intended to withdraw from the program. (ECF No. 69.) She then filed a motion for a
decision dismissing her petitioner on July 21, 2022. (ECF No. 71.)
Petitioner acknowledges in her motion that this dismissal will be an adjudication
on the merits and will result in a final judgment against her. (ECF No. 71, p. 1.)
Moreover, similar motions in other cases have resulted in dismissal with prejudice.
McElerney v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1540V, 2020 WL 4938429 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2020); Otto v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1144V,
2020 WL 4719285 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 17, 2020).
II. Discussion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners 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 §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). 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). No “Table Injury” was alleged in this case. Nor did an examination of the record
uncover any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does
not contain preponderant evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine
caused or in any way vaccine-related.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01881-UNJ Document 78 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 3
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on
the petitioners’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical
records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). Although petitioner
offered a medical opinion from Drs. Steinman and Miglis, the medical opinions did not
provide persuasive evidence supporting a finding of entitlement. Nor did petitioner
present a reliable medical theory causally connecting her HPV vaccination to POTS.
Therefore, I do not find that petitioner has met her burden in this case.
Notably, there have been a number of prior decisions within the Vaccine Program
addressing and rejecting causal theories linking the HPV vaccine to POTS and/or
autonomic nervous system dysfunction. See, e.g., Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 14-254V, 2018 WL 2051760 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 23, 2018); Combs v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.14-878V, 2018 WL 1581672 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 15, 2018); L.A.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-852V, 2017 WL
527576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2017); and Turkopolis v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 10-351V, 2014 WL 2872215 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2014). In
Balasco v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, I previously found such a theory
unpersuasive based in part on an opinion provided by Dr. Miglis, who also opines in this
case. No. 17-215V, 2020 WL 1240917 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 14, 2020).
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing the Petition is GRANTED. This
petition is DISMISSED with prejudice for insufficient proof. 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