VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01622
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01622
Petitioner: M.H.
Filed: 2020-11-17
Decided: 2023-04-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-10
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), neuromyelitis optica, and demyelination type symptoms
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Yashica Tuttle and Marcus Hairston, on behalf of their minor daughter M.H., filed a petition alleging that M.H. suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), neuromyelitis optica, and demyelination type symptoms as a result of an influenza vaccine received on November 10, 2017. The petition was filed on November 17, 2020. Respondent argued the case was not appropriate for compensation. Petitioners requested multiple extensions to obtain expert reports, indicating they needed additional testing and expert opinions to prove their case. Ultimately, after conversations with qualified experts, petitioners concluded that further proceedings would be unreasonable and wasteful of resources. They moved for a decision dismissing their petition, stating that they would require additional testing to prove entitlement and that such testing was unlikely to be available in a reasonable time. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition, noting that petitioners had not met their burden of proof and that the petition was unsupported by sufficient evidence or expert opinion.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01622-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-03
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/3/2023) regarding 37 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (emh) Service on parties made. (Main Document 38 replaced on 4/3/2023) (sw).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01622-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/03/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1622V
Filed: March 3, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
YASHICA TUTTLE and MARCUS
*
HAIRSTON, on behalf of their minor * UNPUBLISHED
daughter, M.H., *
*
*
Petitioners, * Decision on Entitlement; Dismissal of
* Petition; Vaccine Act.
v. *
*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
*
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
I. Procedural History
On November 17, 2020, Yashica Tuttle and Marcus Hairston (“Petitioners”) filed a petition
for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”) on behalf of their minor daughter, M.H., alleging
that M.H. suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), neuromyelitis optica, and
demyelination type symptoms as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine M.H. received on
November 10, 2017. ECF No. 1.
1 This Decision will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to
anyone with access to the internet. As provided in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties
may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To do so, each party
may, within 14 days, request 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). Otherwise, this Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
1

Case 1:20-vv-01622-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/03/23 Page 2 of 3
On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report arguing that Petitioners’ case is
not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 21 at 2. On January 28, 2022, Petitioners moved to
stay these proceedings pending the outcome of a review of M.H.’s case by Cedars-Sinai Hospital.
ECF No. 25 at 1. Respondent did not oppose a stay. Id. at 3. I held a status conference with the
parties on February 15, 2022, at which I informed Petitioners that I would prefer to receive updates
every 60 days. I denied the motion to stay and ordered Petitioners to file a status report with an
update by April 18, 2022. ECF No. 26.
On April 18, 2022, Petitioners filed a motion for extension in which they indicated that
they were reaching out to potential experts to bolster their case. ECF No. 27 at 1. I gave Petitioners
until August 15, 2022, to file an expert report or a status report with an update on their progress in
obtaining one. On August 11, 2022, Petitioners filed a second motion for extension in which they
indicated that they had retained an expert and that the expert needed additional time to review the
record and provide an opinion. ECF No. 28. I gave Petitioners until December 15, 2022, to file an
expert report or a status report with an update on their progress in obtaining one. On December 16,
2022, Petitioner filed a third motion for extension in which they indicated that their expert required
more time to complete his report. ECF No. 29. I gave Petitioners until February 15, 2023, to file
an expert report or a status report with an update on their progress in obtaining one.
On March 3, 2023, Petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing their petition. ECF
No. 34. In it, Petitioners state that
[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting their case,
along with conversations with qualified experts, has demonstrated
to petitioners that they will require additional testing in order to
prove that they are entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program
and that such testing is unlikely to be available in a reasonable
period of time. In these circumstances, to proceed further would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
respondent, and the Vaccine Program.
Id. at 1.
II. Conclusion
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner
may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the petition
must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert.
Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioners
to meet their burden of proof. Petitioners’ claim therefore cannot succeed and, in accordance with
their motion, must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
As such, IT IS ORDERED THAT,
2

Case 1:20-vv-01622-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/03/23 Page 3 of 3
Petitioners’ petition is hereby DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly
or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
3