VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00953
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00953
Petitioner: Dawn Allison
Filed: 2020-08-03
Decided: 2023-01-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-09
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Dawn Allison filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination she received on October 9, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). The case progressed through various procedural stages, including initial review, transfer to a special processing unit, and status conferences. Respondent initially indicated a willingness to engage in settlement discussions but later withdrew from those discussions. The petitioner's counsel filed a motion to withdraw, and subsequently, Dawn Allison filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The court noted that a petitioner must establish entitlement either through a Table injury or by proving actual causation under Althen. Given the lack of sufficient evidence and the petitioner's motion to dismiss, the court found further investigation unwarranted and dismissed the petition for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00953-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-09
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/9/2022) regarding 59 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (slw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00953-UNJ Document 62 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 9, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DAWN ALLISON, * Unpublished
*
Petitioner, * No. 20-953V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal Decision; Guillain-
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Barre Syndrome (“GBS”).
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael J. Elliott, Sheri A. Peters Co. LPA, Munroe Falls, OH, for petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On August 3, 2020, Dawn Allison (“petitioner”), filed a petition in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on October 9, 2019, she suffered from Guillain-Barre
Syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at 1.
The case initially started in PAR, where petitioner was ordered to file additional
affidavits and medical records. See PAR Initial Order (ECF No. 5). Petitioner filed additional
medical records and the case was then transferred to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). (ECF
Nos. 8, 15). An initial status conference was held in SPU on March 25, 2021, and petitioner filed
additional medical records, an affidavit, and evidence regarding her workers’ compensation
claim. (ECF Nos. 21, 23-28). On May 10, 2021, an informal communication remark indicated
that petitioner’s counsel emailed the OSM staff attorney assigned to the case and requested a
status conference. See Informal Communication Remark, May 10, 2021.
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision
is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed
redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision
will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100
Stat. 3755, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. §300aa of the Act.

Case 1:20-vv-00953-UNJ Document 62 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 3
On May 24, 2021, respondent filed a status report informing the court that respondent
will continue to defend the case and found the record sufficiently complete to file a Rule 4(c)
report. (ECF No. 31). After one motion for extension of time to file the Rule 4(c) report,
respondent filed another status report on July 21, 2022, indicating his willingness to engage in
settlement discussions and requested a suspension of the Rule 4(c) report deadline. (ECF No.
33). On August 30, 2021, petitioner filed a status report informing the court that no Medicaid
lien exists and in order to move forward with a demand petitioner’s future lost earnings must be
considered. (ECF No. 36).
Petitioner filed a status report on January 27, 2022, indicating that he had extended a
demand for settlement on January 19, 2022, and was awaiting a response from respondent. (ECF
No. 44). In response to respondent’s request for more records, petitioner filed additional medical
records on April 7, 2022. (ECF No. 46). On May 19, 2022, respondent filed a status report
informing the court that respondent was no longer interested in discussing settlement, and
requested a deadline to file a Rule 4(c) report. (ECF No. 48). On July 5, 2022, respondent filed
his Rule 4(c) report, recommending against compensation. Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Report
(“Rept.”) (ECF No. 49).
The case was transferred out of SPU and reassigned to my docket on August 5, 2022. See
Notice of Reassignment (ECF No. 51). On August 9, 2022, I ordered petitioner to file an expert
report. See non-pdf scheduling order, August 9, 2022. On August 29, 2022, petitioner’s counsel,
Michael J. Elliott, filed a motion to withdraw as attorney. Petitioner’s (“Pet.”) Motion (“Mot.”)
to Withdraw (ECF No. 54). Following three scheduling orders ordering petitioner to file a status
report that she has obtained counsel and deferring on ruling on Mr. Elliott’s motion to withdraw
as counsel, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on December 8, 2022. Mot. to
Dismiss (ECF No. 58). The motion notes that “an 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. Id.
A petitioner must establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program through
one of two ways. The first way is to establish that he or she suffered a “Table injury,” i.e., that
he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and subsequently developed a
corresponding injury within a corresponding period of time. § 300aa-11(c)(1). The second way
is to establish that the vaccine actually caused the onset or significant aggravation of a condition
in the vaccinee. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A). To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a
medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable
temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Althen v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The information in the record indicates
that there is insufficient evidence presented at this time to justify an award. Accordingly, in light
of petitioner’s motion requesting a decision dismissing her petition, a further investigation is
unwarranted. As such, the petition is hereby, DISMISSED.
This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.3
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).

Case 1:20-vv-00953-UNJ Document 62 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master