VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00879
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00879
Petitioner: Jerry D. Keller
Filed: 2019-09-24
Decided: 2025-09-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-03
Condition: injection-site abscess
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 24, 2019, Jerry D. Keller filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 3, 2018 caused an injection-site abscess. The case was one of a group of petitions arising from a Kentucky mobile vaccination provider and was related to litigation issues addressed in the Silvers proceedings.

The public dismissal decision focuses on jurisdiction and proof rather than a detailed medical timeline. Respondent recommended denial, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because of a pending civil action when the petition was transferred and that the record did not establish the Vaccine Act severity requirement. Mr. Keller did not file an expert report.

On August 29, 2025, Mr. Keller moved to dismiss, stating that he understood the case would be dismissed with prejudice and indicating that he wished to protect his civil-action rights. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition with prejudice on September 5, 2025. No compensation was awarded. Mr. Keller was represented by John J. Patterson of Luxon Patterson & Himes.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 3, 2018, adult exact age not stated, alleged injection-site abscess after a mobile vaccination clinic in Kentucky. DISMISSED. The case was part of a group of petitions related to the same vaccination provider and overlapped with civil-action/jurisdiction issues addressed in Silvers. After respondent recommended denial for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and insufficient severity proof, petitioner moved to dismiss. Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed with prejudice on September 5, 2025. Attorney John J. Patterson.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00879-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-30
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/05/2025) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ers) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00879-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-879V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JERRY D. KELLER, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: September 5, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John J. Patterson, Luxon, Patterson & Himes, PLLC, Richmond, KY, for Petitioner.
James V. Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On September 24, 2019, Jerry Keller filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1.
Petitioner alleges that receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 3, 2018, caused an abscess
injury at the injection site. Id. In particular, Petitioner contends that the vaccine he received was
administered by a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity that was later determined to have exercised
inadequate safety control over its vaccines, resulting in numerous vaccinated individuals
experiencing comparable abscess injuries.
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to 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, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:21-vv-00879-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/30/25 Page 2 of 3
This matter was initiated at the same time as a number of related petitions brought by
similarly-situated claimants, all of whom were represented by the same attorney.3 The parties
consented to resolution of entitlement in one “test case,” the results of which could then be applied
to the related cases. In April 2024, I ruled in favor of the test case petitioner, finding that the
administration of the influenza vaccine had caused him to experience a right shoulder skin abscess
associated with a bacterial infection. See generally Silvers v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
20-1V, 2024 WL 2799285 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25, 2024).
On August 1, 2025, Respondent filed his joint Rule 4(c) Report and Response to Motion
for Ruling on the Record. See Response, dated Aug. 1, 2025 (ECF No. 24) (“Resp.”). In it,
Respondent argues this case lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioner had a pending civil
action for a vaccine-related injury at the time his claim was transferred to this Court. Resp. at 2.
Moreover, Respondent maintains that Petitioner has not set forth preponderant evidence to satisfy
the statutory “severity” requirement pursuant to section 11(c)(1)(D). Id. at 3. Now, having
reviewed the evidence in this case and taking into account the Silvers decision, Petitioner has filed
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 21(b). Motion, dated Aug. 29, 2025 (ECF No. 25). In his
Motion, Petitioner recognizes that this dismissal will be with prejudice, and states that he does
“intend to protect his rights to file a civil action in the future.” Id. at 1.
Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), a petitioner may request a decision dismissing a petition,
even after preparation of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Under such circumstances, the decision
will result in a judgment, although the dismissal will be with prejudice (unless otherwise
indicated). Rule 21(b)(1) and (2). Here, I find such a decision appropriate. To be entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she 1) suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to his
vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner cannot meet the relevant evidentiary standards and has not
offered an expert report to support his claim (a step I deemed critical to substantiating entitlement
in this case).
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS the Petition with prejudice. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.4
3 See generally Silvers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-1V), Stewart v. Health and Human Services
(No. 20-19V), Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-1048V), Atkins v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services (No. 20-333V), and Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-1120V).
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00879-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/30/25 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERD.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3