VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01432
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01432
Petitioner: Russell DeVoe
Filed: 2022-03-08
Decided: 2022-04-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-30
Condition: Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Russell DeVoe filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 8, 2022, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 30, 2017. After investigating the facts and science, Mr. DeVoe concluded that he would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. He filed a motion requesting a decision dismissing his petition, stating that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste resources. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not disclose evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it contain a medical expert’s opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The court found that the petition was not supported by sufficient medical records or opinions to demonstrate a vaccine injury. Therefore, Mr. DeVoe's claim for compensation was denied, and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01432-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/08/2022) regarding 27 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01432-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1432V
UNPUBLISHED
RUSSELL DEVOE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 8, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
HUMAN SERVICES, Dismissing Petition; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Respondent. (GBS)
Peter M. Young, Habush, Habush & Rottier, S.C., Wausau, WI, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 22, 2020, Russell DeVoe 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 injuries including Guillain Barre
Syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 30, 2017. Petition at
1-8. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of
Special Masters.
On March 7, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a dismissal decision, acknowledging
that he will be unable to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. Petitioner’s Motion for
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 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, 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 (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-01432-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2
Decision Dismissing Petition, filed March 7, 2022, at *1 (ECF No. 26).3 Petitioner stated
that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science at this stage has demonstrated to the
Petitioner that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine
Program.” Id. Under these circumstances, Petitioner stated that “to proceed any further
would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Petitioner, the Court, the
Respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. Thus, Petitioner requested dismissal, stating
that he “understands that a Decision by the Special Master dismissing his Petition will
result in a Judgment dismissing his claim in the NVICP. Petitioner has been advised that
such judgment will end all of his rights in the NVICP.” Id.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either
1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table
– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record
does not disclose any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the
record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence
indicating that Petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was
injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A),
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED for
insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Although Petitioner filed his motion using the CM/ECF event for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 21(a), it is clear that Petitioner intended to file a motion to dismiss which would result in a judgment.
In the motion, Petitioner acknowledges that his motion will result in a decision and later judgment which will
end his rights in the Vaccine Program.
4 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.
2