VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00210
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00210
Petitioner: LINDSAY CORUM, as Legal Representative of the Estate of STEPHEN M. CORUM, Deceased, on behalf of the Estate of MARSHALL WAYNE CORUM, Deceased
Filed: 2021-06-07
Decided: 2021-07-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-09-18
Condition: coma, loss of consciousness, severe confusion, rhabdomyolysis, extremely elevated creatinine and creatinine kinase levels, acute liver failure, altered mental status, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, acute personality change, lethargy, unresponsiveness, pain, fatigue, and death
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Lindsay Corum, as legal representative of the estate of her deceased father-in-law, Marshall Wayne Corum, filed a claim alleging that Mr. Corum suffered a fatal injury as a result of his September 18, 2013 influenza vaccination. The alleged injuries included coma, loss of consciousness, severe confusion, rhabdomyolysis, elevated creatinine and creatinine kinase levels, acute liver failure, altered mental status, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, personality change, lethargy, unresponsiveness, pain, and fatigue, culminating in death. The petition was filed on June 7, 2021. The court noted a threshold issue regarding Ms. Corum's standing to file as the legal representative of the estate, ordering her to provide proof of capacity. After a status report indicating she was seeking legal counsel for estate representation, Ms. Corum instead filed a motion to dismiss her own petition on June 4, 2021. She stated that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation and that proceeding further would be unreasonable. The Special Master explained that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury, requiring evidence beyond mere allegations. As the petitioner's medical records did not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and no expert medical opinion was filed, the Special Master granted the motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00210-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-07-12
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/7/2021) regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (tkp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00210-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/12/21 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-210V
Filed: June 7, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
LINDSAY CORUM, as Legal
Special Master Horner
Representative of the Estate of
STEPHEN M. CORUM, Deceased, on
Motion to Dismiss; Influenza
behalf of the Estate of MARSHALL Vaccine; Death;
WAYNE CORUM, Deceased,
Rhabdomyolysis; Metabolic
Encephalopathy
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Otwell Sayers Rankin, B. Dahlenburg Bonar P.S.C., Covington, KY, for petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On February 26, 2020, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that petitioner’s late father-
in-law suffered injuries “including but not limited to coma, loss of consciousness, severe
confusion, rhabdomyolysis, extremely elevated creatinine and creatinine kinase levels,
acute liver failure, altered mental status, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, acute
personality change, lethargy, unresponsiveness, pain, [and] fatigue” and death as a
result of his September 18, 2013 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1.)
On October 1, 2020, I held an initial status conference explaining that there was
a threshold issue of whether petitioner had standing to bring this case because she had
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.

Case 1:20-vv-00210-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/12/21 Page 2 of 3
not provided proof of her capacity to file as legal representative of the vaccinee. (ECF
No. 14, p. 1.) Following the status conference, I ordered petitioner to file a status report
within 60 days indicating how she intended to proceed regarding the issue of her
capacity to represent the vaccinee in this case.
On November 2, 2020, petitioner filed a status report indicating that she had
contacted an attorney to assist her in becoming the legal representative of her father-in-
law’s estate. (ECF No. 16.) However, on June 4, 2021, petitioner instead filed a Motion
for a Decision Dismissing her Petition. (ECF No. 24.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n
investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated to
Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program,” and that “to proceed further would be unreasonable and would
waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” (Id. at
1.) Petitioner further stated that she “understands that a decision by the Special Master
dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her. She has been advised that
such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” (Id.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine
Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that the vaccinee 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). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from
ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
Petitioner’s medical records do not support her allegations by a preponderance
of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of her
allegations. 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.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
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.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00210-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/12/21 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3