VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00880
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00880
Petitioner: Gina Schueler
Filed: 2020-09-24
Decided: 2025-09-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-08
Condition: injection-site abscess
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 24, 2020, Gina Schueler filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 8, 2018 caused an injection-site abscess. Like several related cases, her petition arose from vaccinations administered through a Kentucky mobile vaccination provider.

The public dismissal decision does not contain a detailed clinical account of the abscess. Respondent recommended denial, raising jurisdictional issues tied to related civil litigation and arguing that the Vaccine Act severity requirement was not established. Ms. Schueler filed no expert report.

After the related Silvers proceedings, Ms. Schueler moved to dismiss her petition. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case with prejudice on September 5, 2025. No compensation was awarded. Ms. Schueler was represented by John J. Patterson of Luxon Patterson & Himes.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 8, 2018, adult exact age not stated, alleged injection-site abscess after a Kentucky mobile vaccination provider. DISMISSED. Respondent recommended denial based on jurisdictional/civil-action issues and insufficient proof; petitioner filed no expert report and moved to dismiss after Silvers-related proceedings. 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-00880-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-30
Pages: 2
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-00880-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-880V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
GINA SCHUELER, * 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, 2020, Gina Schueler 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 vaccine on October 8, 2018, caused an abscess injury
at the injection site. Id. In particular, Petitioner contends that the vaccine she 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-00880-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/30/25 Page 2 of 2
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 July 15, 2025, Respondent filed his joint Rule 4(c) Report and Response to Motion for
Ruling on the Record recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. See Response,
dated July 15, 2025 (ECF No. 23). 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 her Motion, Petitioner recognizes that this dismissal
will be with prejudice, and states that he does not “intend to protect her 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 her
vaccination, or 2) that she 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 her 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
IT IS SO ORDERD.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
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