VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00848
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00848
Petitioner: Kim Hill
Filed: 2021-01-26
Decided: 2023-03-21
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-08-15
Condition: redness, swelling, tightness and pain in her left foot and ultimately a stress fracture
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kim Hill filed a claim alleging that an influenza vaccination received on August 15, 2020, caused redness, swelling, tightness, and pain in her left foot, ultimately leading to a stress fracture. Her petition was filed on January 26, 2021. The respondent filed a report recommending against compensation. After a status conference where the need for a supporting medical opinion was discussed, Ms. Hill filed a motion to dismiss her own petition on February 24, 2023. She stated she was unable to comply with the court's order to produce an expert report and believed she could not meet her burden of proof, although she maintained her position that the vaccine was a substantial factor in causing her cellulitis. The court 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. Ms. Hill's medical records did not support her allegations, and she had not filed an expert medical opinion. Consequently, the Special Master granted her motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00848-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/24/2023) regarding 57 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (amb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00848-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-848V
Filed: February 24, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
KIM HILL,
Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
Petitioner’s Motion for Decision
v. Dismissing Petition; Influenza
(Flu) vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner.
Lynn Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On January 26, 2021, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that her receipt of an
influenza vaccination on August 15, 2020, caused redness, swelling, tightness and pain
in her left foot and ultimately a stress fracture. (ECF No. 1.) On February 7, 2022,
respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 44.)
On April 12, 2022, I held a status conference where I discussed the need for petitioner
to secure a medical opinion supporting her claim. (ECF No. 46.)
On February 24, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her
Petition. (ECF No. 56.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]fter careful review of the case
Petitioner is unable to comply with the Court’s order” requiring her to produce an expert
report. (Id.) While petitioner “maintains her position that the vaccine in question was a
substantial factor in causing her cellulitis…given the foregoing, it seems unlikely that
Petitioner will be able to meet her burden of proof required in the Vaccine Program.”
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 1:21-vv-00848-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 2
(Id.) Petitioner further stated that she “understands that a decision dismissing her
Petition will result in a judgment against her and will end her rights in the Vaccine
Program.” (Id.)
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 has not filed 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