VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00729
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00729
Petitioner: Carlington Keith Myers
Filed: 2020-06-17
Decided: 2024-12-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-11-23
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Carlington Keith Myers filed a petition on June 17, 2020, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on November 23, 2016, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). He also asserted a claim for significant aggravation of a condition. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, found that the petition was not filed within the 36-month statute of limitations. The medical records indicated that Petitioner's neurological symptoms began in May 2017, over five months after his vaccination. This onset date was more than 36 months prior to the petition's filing date of June 17, 2020. The Special Master also noted that the onset of symptoms fell outside the generally accepted timeframe for GBS claims, even for off-Table ones, which are typically expected within six to eight weeks post-vaccination. The earliest onset of symptoms was in May 2017, over five months after the November 2016 vaccination. Furthermore, treating physicians considered a prior upper respiratory infection as a potential cause for his GBS. Due to the untimeliness of the petition and the lack of established causation within a plausible timeframe, the case was dismissed. The public decision does not name Petitioner's counsel or Respondent's counsel, nor does it detail specific clinical findings beyond the diagnoses and symptom progression, or describe the mechanism of GBS causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Carlington Keith Myers alleged that an influenza vaccine received on November 23, 2016, caused Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and alternatively, a significant aggravation of a condition. The petition was filed on June 17, 2020. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, dismissed the case, finding it was not filed within the 36-month statute of limitations, as Petitioner's symptoms began in May 2017, over five months after vaccination. The Special Master also determined that the onset of symptoms was outside the typical timeframe for GBS claims, even off-Table ones, which are generally expected within six to eight weeks post-vaccination. Treating physicians considered a prior upper respiratory infection as a potential cause for the GBS. The public decision does not name specific experts or detail a medical theory connecting the vaccine to the GBS, nor does it provide an award amount. The case was dismissed for untimeliness and insufficient evidence of causation.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00729-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-06
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/29/2024) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0729V
CARLINGTON KEITH MYERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 29, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Vasiliki D. Koutsogiannis, Law Office of James Snell, Jr. LLC, Lexington, SC, for
Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On June 17, 2020, Carlington Keith Myers filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) that
was caused in fact by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November 23, 2016.3
Petition at 1. Petitioner alternatively asserts a significant aggravation claim, which
1 Because this Decision 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 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2018).
3 Although GBS is on the Vaccine Injury Table, Petitioner does not assert a Table GBS claim; nor would
such a claim be viable.

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 10
appears to be based on a hospitalization from June 2017. Id. at ¶ 15. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that the petition was not filed within the
time permitted by section 16(a)(2) of the Vaccine Act. In addition, Petitioner has not
established by preponderant evidence that he suffered from GBS caused in fact by his
flu vaccination. Therefore, the case is dismissed.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On September 23, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 31). Following a status conference, Petitioner was given additional time
to determine how he wished to proceed (ECF No. 32). On February 12, 2023, Petitioner
filed a status report requesting “an extended amount of time to rule on Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report and Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner wishes to seek additional opinions from
potential counsel” (ECF No. 33). On June 20, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report stating
that “Petitioner’s counsel had no further information from the previous status report filed
on February 12, 2023. Petitioner indicated that he would like more time to obtain
additional counsel, however no communication has been made to Petitioner’s counsel on
Petitioner’s behalf” (ECF No. 34).
On September 18, 2023, I issued an order concerning the deficiencies identified in
motion to dismiss, and allowing Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the motion or
dismiss the claim by November 20, 2023 (ECF No. 35). On November 20, 2023, Petitioner
filed a status report stating that counsel “has no further information from the previous
status report filed on June 20, 2023.” (ECF No. 36). Petitioner’s counsel stated that in
January of 2023, Petitioner indicated that he wanted more time to obtain additional
counsel, but “no further communication has been made to Petitioner’s counsel on
Petitioner’s behalf.” Id. Counsel added that she “does not have authorization from
Petitioner to file a motion, notice, or stipulation to dismiss on Petitioner’s behalf.” Id. No
further documentation has been filed. Despite numerous opportunities, Petitioner has not
responded to the motion to dismiss. The issue of whether the petition should be dismissed
is now ripe for resolution.
II. Legal Standards
The Vaccine Act statute of limitations provides that no petition for an alleged
vaccine-related injury may be filed “after the expiration of 36 months after the date of the
occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation
of such injury.” Section 16(a)(2). The statute begins to run from the manifestation of the
first objectively recognizable symptom, regardless of whether that symptom is sufficient
for diagnosis. Id.; Carson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 727 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2013); Barger v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 23-939V, 2024 WL 1181272
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 20, 2024).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 10
Under Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that all requirements for a petition set forth in section
11(c)(1) have been satisfied. A petitioner may prevail on his claim if he has “sustained, or
endured the significant aggravation of any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth
in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table). Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). The most recent version of
the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, identifies the vaccines covered under
the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the time period in which the particular
injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a). If petitioner establishes that the
vaccinee has suffered a “Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
If, however, the vaccinee suffered an injury that either is not listed in the Table or
did not occur within the prescribed time frame, the petitioner must prove that the
administered vaccine caused injury to receive Program compensation. Section
11(c)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii). In such circumstances, the petitioner asserts a “non-Table or [an]
off-Table” claim and to prevail, must prove his claim by preponderant evidence. Section
13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or ‘more probable than
not’ causation.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1279-80 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (referencing Hellebrand v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 999 F.2d 1565,
1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The Federal Circuit has held that to establish an off-Table
injury, petitioners must “prove . . . that the vaccine was not only a but-for cause of the
injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Shyface v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir 1999). Id. at 1352. The received vaccine,
however, need not be the predominant cause of the injury. Id. at 1351.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that a petitioner “must show ‘a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that the vaccine was a
substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting
Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The
Circuit Court added that "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing
that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. The Federal Circuit subsequently
reiterated these requirements in its Althen decision. See 418 F.3d at 1278. Althen
requires a petitioner
to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination
brought about her injury by providing: (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.
Id. All three prongs of Althen must be satisfied. Id.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 10
Finding that a petitioner is entitled to compensation must not be “based on the
claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.”
Section 13(a)(1). Further, contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be
accurate and complete in their recording of all relevant information as to petitioner’s
medical issues. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993, F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Testimony offered after the events in questions is considered less reliable than
contemporaneous reports because the need for accurate explanation of symptoms is
more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523
(1993).
An off-Table significant aggravation claim is brought by filing a petition asserting
that a petitioner:
(ii)(I) sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability,
injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was
caused by a vaccine referred to in subparagraph (A), or
(II) sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury,
or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or
manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not
occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by
a vaccine referred to in subparagraph (A)
Vaccine Act § 11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
A prima facie case of significant aggravation of an off-Table injury requires proof,
by a preponderance of the evidence, of six elements: (1) the person’s condition prior to
vaccine administration; (2) the person’s current condition; (3) whether the person’s
current condition constitutes a ‘significant aggravation’; (4) a medical theory causally
connecting such a worsened condition to the vaccine; (5) a logical sequence of cause
and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the significant aggravation;
and (6) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and
significant aggravation. Loving v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144
(2009). The Vaccine Act defines significant aggravation as “any change for the worse in
a preexisting condition which results in markedly greater disability, pain, or illness
accompanied by substantial deterioration of health.” Section 33(4).
In Sharpe v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 964 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the
Federal Circuit further elaborated on the Loving framework. Under Prong (3) of the Loving
test, a petitioner need not demonstrate an expected outcome, but merely that his current-
post vaccination condition was worse than pre-vaccination. Sharpe, 964 F.3d at 1081. A
claimant may establish a prima facie case of significant aggravation without eliminating
another potential alternate cause. Id. at 1083.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 10
III. Relevant Factual History
A. Medical Records
On November 23, 2016, Petitioner received a flu vaccine. Ex. 1 at 4. Five and a
half months later, on May 12, 2017, he went to a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)
emergency department (“ED”), reporting “cough/cold/congestion with yellow phlegm x 2
weeks.” Ex. 9 (ECF No. 23-1) at 345-46. He was diagnosed with an upper respiratory
infection and discharged with medications. Id. at 347-49.
Two days later (May 14, 2017), Petitioner returned to the VA ED reporting
headaches in addition to chest and back pains. Ex. 9 at 342. He was discharged in stable
condition and instructed to rest, take fluids, continue current medications, alternate Motrin
and Tylenol, use Tramadol for severe pain, follow up with his primary care physician
(“PCP”), and return for worsening or changes. Id. at 344.
The next day, on May 15, 2017, Petitioner returned to the VA ED. Ex. 9 at 336. He
reported worsening of all of his prior symptoms, and in addition his mouth was numb, his
lower abdomen was painful, and he had vomited a couple of times. Id. He was admitted
for observation. Id. at 341. He remained hospitalized until sometime between May 16-18.4
Id. at 25. He was diagnosed with complex migraine, thoracolumbar muscle spasms,
dyspepsia, PTSD, and dysphagia. Id.
Petitioner spoke with his PCP by phone on May 19, 2017, reporting that he was
still having some facial numbness, difficulty opening his mouth, and headaches. Ex. 7
(ECF No. 13-8) at 112.5 He was having some blurry vision, but denied other neurological
symptoms. Id.
A week later, on May 26, 2017, Petitioner saw his PCP Dr. Theo Mwamba to follow
up on his hospital discharge. Ex. 9 at 306. He had lost about 15 pounds in two weeks due
to jaw pain and difficulty chewing. Id. at 307. He was having issues with balance as well.
Id. Dr. Mwamba noted that Petitioner’s presentation was complex. Id. He ordered scans
and tests, and referred Petitioner for evaluation to rule out a mental illness such as
conversion disorder. Id.
4 The discharge summary has three different discharge dates. Ex. 9. The header of the discharge summary
has a discharge date of May 16, 2017. Ex. 9 at 25. Just below that, it notes a discharge date of 5/17/17. Id.
Within the text of the summary, it states “[h]e was sent home in stable condition on 5/18/17.” Id. at 26. For
purposes of this Decision, the precise discharge date is not relevant.
5 Petitioner filed Exhibit 7 in two parts that are not properly labeled or paginated. Thus, I refer to the two
parts using the ECF document numbers (ECF Nos. 13-7 and 13-8) and the page numbers added to the
PDFs by CM/ECF.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 10
Petitioner returned to the ED on June 1, 2017, complaining of a headache, neck
pain, facial numbness, and difficulty eating. Ex. 9 at 303. He was discharged with
diagnoses of degenerative joint disease and spinal stenosis. Id. at 305.
Twelve days later, on June 13, 2017, Petitioner saw neurologist Dr. Nasir Waheed.
Ex. 9 at 297. He reported intermittent daily headaches and weakness in his face and
lower extremities. Id. at 297-298. Dr. Waheed noted that Petitioner “seems to have
developed some new symptoms and signs since last seen in the hospital, which would
need further work up.” Id. at 298. Petitioner elected to go to the ED. Id.
That day (June 13, 2017), Petitioner went to the ED and was admitted to the
hospital. Ex. 9 at 280. He had first noticed upper respiratory symptoms about six weeks
earlier, and developed headaches with occasional blurred vision and diplopia. Id. Within
days he developed facial palsy and was thought to have a complex migraine. Id. On
examination, it appeared as though he did have “true palsies.” Id. Petitioner reported that
his symptoms of neck pain, headache, bilateral facial weakness, and generalized
weakness had not worsened or improved since they initially began almost a month earlier.
Id. at 282. He was unable to smile, frown, or lift his brows, and had bilateral facial
weakness. Id. at 283. The differential diagnoses included Lyme disease, bilateral Bell’s
palsy, syphilis, Myasthenia Gravis, GBS, and Lambert-Eaton. Id. at 285.
While hospitalized, a lumbar puncture revealed elevated cerebrospinal fluid protein
levels, suggesting GBS, likely variant Miller Fisher Syndrome. Ex. 9 at 21. His treating
doctors considered that his GBS may have been triggered by his prior upper respiratory
infection, noting that “patient’s symptoms all precipitated following an upper viral illness.”
Id. He underwent a five day course of IVIG, without much objective improvement. Id. at
22. He was discharged on June 20, 2017 and instructed to follow up with neurology and
to continue physical and occupational therapies on an outpatient basis. Id. at 21-22.
Petitioner thereafter continued care on an outpatient basis. See generally Ex. 9.
B. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his claim. Ex. 56 (ECF No. 13-5). Petitioner
asserts that he suffered from GBS that was formally diagnosed on or around June 19,
2017, during his second hospitalization – and after his previous symptoms were
significantly aggravated. Ex. 5 at ¶ 1. He maintains symptoms began in March 2017,7
6 Petitioner filed two affidavits designated as Exhibit 5, ECF Nos. 1-7 and 13-5. The only difference appears
to be the addition of a paragraph affirming that he had not filed a prior civil action in the second one. For
purposes of this order, I refer to the second affidavit, ECF No. 13-5, as Exhibit 5.
7 Although Petitioner states his symptoms began and he went to the ED in March 2017, it appears that he
is referring to his May ED visits. Having reviewed the VA records, the only record from March 2017 is a
March 14, 2017 letter from the VA to Petitioner stating that they had been trying to reach him to schedule
a clinic appointment. Ex. 9 (ECF 23-1) at 348-49. Additionally, his treatment records in mid-June 2017 refer
to symptoms beginning approximately one month earlier. Id. at 20, 281.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 7 of 10
starting with a “bad chest cold.” Id. at ¶ 10. He went to the ED and was discharged the
same day. Id.
Petitioner returned to the ED on May 14, 2017, with worsening symptoms. Ex. 5 at
¶ 11. Doctors were unable to determine the cause of his symptoms, and he was sent
home. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. Thereafter, he states he lost 26 pounds and his “pain significantly
increased . . . and my injury significantly aggravated.” Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.
He states that “due to the significant aggravation of [his] symptoms, including [his]
weight loss,” he was readmitted to the hospital from June 13-20, 2017. Ex. 5 at ¶ 17.
During that hospitalization, based on results of a spinal tap, he was diagnosed with GBS
and treated with IVIG. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.
Following discharge, he continued IVIG treatments. Ex. 5 at ¶ 21. His mobility
returned, and he began walking with a cane. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. Some other symptoms, such
as cheek and facial paralysis, have not gone away. Id. at ¶ 22.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
Respondent argues that that this case is not appropriate for compensation and
should be dismissed for several reasons. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Motion to
Dismiss, filed Sept. 23, 2022 (ECF No. 31) (“Motion to Dismiss”). First, Respondent
argues that Petitioner had not offered a reputable medical or scientific theory in support
of vaccine-related GBS. Motion to Dismiss at *9. Moreover, Respondent asserts that the
contemporaneous medical records “do not support the onset of petitioner’s alleged GBS
within a timeframe in which vaccine causation could be ascribed.” Id. Respondent adds
that asserting GBS caused by a flu vaccine with onset five to six months after vaccination
may lack a reasonable basis. Id.
Respondent further asserts that there is evidence of an alternative cause for
Petitioner’s alleged GBS, noting that he was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection
in May of 2017. Motion to Dismiss at *9. Respondent adds that Petitioner’s claim was filed
more than 36 months after the onset of his condition and thus is time-barred. Id.
Respondent states that Petitioner’s medical records document that he began
experiencing symptoms of a GBS variant on May 14, 2017, but did not file the petition
until June 17, 2020, approximately one month after the limitations period expired. Id. at
*10.
Respondent states that the petition appears to take the position that the statute of
limitations began to run during his June 13 to June 20, 2017 hospitalization, when his
condition was ‘significantly aggravated.’ Motion to Dismiss at *10-11. However,
Respondent distinguishes between a worsening of Petitioner’s condition and a significant
aggravation claim, and asserts that Petitioner has not satisfied the six-part test for a
significant aggravation claim set forth in Loving, 86 Fed. Cl. 135. Id. Respondent explains
that there is “absolutely no evidence to suggest that petitioner had GBS before receiving
7

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 8 of 10
the flu vaccine on November 23, 2016, so there is no basis for making a significant
aggravation claim.” Id.
Petitioner has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
V. Analysis
A. Statute of Limitations
To be timely, a petition must be filed within 36 months of the first symptom or
manifestation of onset, or the significant aggravation, of an injury. Section 16(a)(2). In this
case, for the petition to be timely, Petitioner must show that the first symptom or
manifestation of onset, or the significant aggravation of a preexisting injury, occurred less
than 36 months before the petition was filed, i.e., no earlier than June 17, 2017. But the
record preponderates against such a determination.
Rather, the record clearly demonstrates that Petitioner’s neurological symptoms
began by no later than some time in mid-May 2017. When Petitioner reported to the ED
on May 15, 2017, he reported mouth numbness. Ex. 9 at 338; see also Ex. 7 (ECF No.
13-8) at 112 (complaining of facial numbness on May 19, 2017). Petitioner was
subsequently admitted to the hospital for the symptoms that led to his GBS diagnosis on
June 13, 2017. Ex. 9 at 299. These symptoms included weakness in his face and lower
extremities, generalized weakness, facial palsy, blurred vision, and headaches. Ex. 9 at
282-84.
Give the above, no straightforward causation-in-fact claim could be based on such
an onset and be timely, since this matter was filed more than three years later, in June
2020 rather than May. The same conclusion holds for even a significant aggravation claim
– for even if Petitioner’s June 2017 symptoms reflected some “aggravation,” they
occurred so long after the November 2016 vaccination that they could not credibly be
linked to it, meaning no intervening vaccination occurred at all.8 The Petition was thus
untimely.
B. Onset
The Petition’s deficiencies go well beyond the case’s untimeliness. In particular,
the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms fell far outside of a facially-plausible timeframe.
The onset of Petitioner’s GBS symptoms occurred, at the earliest, in May of 2017,
which is over five months after vaccination. This is months outside of the Table timeframe
of 3-42 days for a GBS claim. It is also far beyond the longest medically-acceptable
timeframe that has been recognized in Vaccine Program cases, generally six to eight
8 In fact, even if Petitioner could point to a vaccination that occurred after an alleged May 2017 onset, the
record supports the conclusion that his purported aggravation began on June 13, 2017 – meaning any
petition based on it would have to have been initiated by no later than June 15, 2020 (since June 13th was
a Saturday that year) – not two days after.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 9 of 10
weeks. See Chinea v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-095V, 2019 WL 1873322,
at *29 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 15, 2019) (“[i]n most successful non-Table cases, onset
of symptoms is demonstrated to have occurred no longer than six to eight weeks after
vaccination . . . . I am aware of no published Vaccine Program decisions that have found
a timeframe longer than two months to be medically acceptable”); see also Benenhaley
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0545V, 2022 WL 17974426, at *5 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Nov. 28 2022) (dismissing case alleging GBS with onset 109 days after
vaccination); James v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1357V, 2021 WL
1413814 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 15, 2021) (finding onset of GBS was four months
after vaccination, too late for a Table or off Table claim, and thus dismissing); Ray v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-321V, 2021 WL 778435 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13,
2021) (dismissing Table GBS claim based on finding that onset of symptoms occurred
over 70 days after vaccination); Finch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-675V,
2018 WL 818265 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 19, 2018) (noting that if Petitioner had GBS,
the onset thereof was five months after vaccination, and dismissing claim).
While the records do seem to suggest that Petitioner suffered from GBS, his
symptoms began far too long post-vaccination to be credibly associated with that prior
event.9
Conclusion
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED as
untimely and for insufficient evidence. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.10
9 In addition, Petitioner’s treating physicians considered his upper respiratory infection as a potential cause
of his GBS. See, e.g., Chinea, 2019 WL 1873322, at *28 (“two-thirds of GBS cases follow an antecedent
infection (typically an upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection) beginning a few weeks prior to
symptoms onset”); Rupert v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-160V, 2014 WL 785256 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2014) (dismissing GBS claim because preponderant evidence established that
Petitioner’s GBS was caused not by vaccine but by a factor unrelated to vaccination, an antecedent upper
respiratory infection).
10 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.
9

Case 1:20-vv-00729-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/06/24 Page 10 of 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10