VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00839
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00839
Petitioner: Jennifer Reyes
Filed: 2021-10-13
Decided: 2021-11-17
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-02-06
Condition: brachial plexopathy, also known as Parsonage-Turner Synrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jennifer Reyes filed a claim alleging that she suffered brachial plexopathy, also known as Parsonage-Turner Syndrome, after receiving a Tdap vaccination on February 6, 2018. Her petition was filed with the Court of Federal Claims on October 13, 2021. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4 report recommending against compensation. Subsequently, Ms. Reyes filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. She understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending her rights in the Vaccine Program. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury, requiring a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The decision stated that Ms. Reyes's medical records did not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and she did not file an expert medical opinion. Therefore, the Special Master granted Ms. Reyes's motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement. The case was dismissed, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00839-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/13/2021) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (tkp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00839-UNJ Document 31 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-839V
Filed: October 13, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
JENNIFER REYES,
Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v. Dismissing Petition; Tetanus,
Diphtheria, Pertussis (Tdap)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
Vaccine; Brachial Plexopathy;
HUMAN SERVICES,
Parsonage-Turner Syndrome
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On July 10, 2020, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered brachial
plexopathy, also known as Parsonage-Turner Synrome after receiving a tetanus,
diphtheria, pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on February 6, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On June
21, 2021, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation.
(ECF No. 26.)
On October 7, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her
Petition. (ECF No. 29.) 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 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
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-00839-UNJ Document 31 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2
judgment against her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her
rights in the Vaccine Program.” (Id. at 2.)
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 §§ 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
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.
2