VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00884
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00884
Petitioner: Joyce E. Jeffries
Filed: 2021-02-05
Decided: 2023-11-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-05
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Joyce E. Jeffries, born September 26, 1953, filed a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 5, 2021, through her power of attorney, Sherry Jeffries Compton. The initial claim alleged Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccine received on October 18, 2017, and a subsequent influenza vaccine in November 2018, which was claimed to have aggravated her GBS. The claim based on the 2017 vaccination was dismissed as untimely. The case proceeded focusing on the alleged significant aggravation of a pre-existing GBS condition by the November 5, 2018 influenza vaccination. Ms. Jeffries was 65 years old at the time of the 2018 vaccination. Her medical history included acid reflux, peripheral neuropathy, vertigo, and chronic headaches. Records from December 2017 indicated symptoms of back pain, weakness, fatigue, shortness of breath, and paresthesias in her feet, with peripheral neuropathy noted in the differential diagnosis upon discharge, though no formal GBS diagnosis was made. In June 2018, she experienced weakness, fatigue, and difficulty swallowing. In September 2018, records from Midtown Center for Health and Rehabilitation indicated a diagnosis of GBS on September 6, 2018, secondary to chronic pulmonary edema, along with other conditions. She was also evaluated on the Morse Fall Scale and rated as having a "Moderate Risk for Falling." On November 5, 2018, Ms. Jeffries received another influenza vaccine. Post-vaccination records from November and December 2018 did not establish new health concerns or changes in her status; she reported her pain medication was working, and her fall risk evaluation remained "High Risk for Falling" in December 2018. Subsequent records through June 2019 showed her fall risk rating improved to "Moderate Risk" and then "Low Risk." In July 2019, a physiatrist noted ambulatory and ADL dysfunction related to GBS with lower limb paresis and neuropathic pain, prolonged hospital course/debility, and left trapezius strain, but made no mention of a change in her overall course or a distinction between her condition pre and post-vaccination. August 2019 notes mentioned hospitalization due to generalized weakness and difficulty swallowing, with a diagnosis of GBS, and stated she had regained a large amount of strength. Her fall risk rating in September 2019 was "Low Risk." The Special Master reviewed witness statements from Ms. Jeffries's physical therapist and brother, who generally described pain and weakness that prevented her from leaving bed, but these statements were not temporally specific enough to prove worsening attributable to the vaccine. The Special Master found that the medical records did not preponderantly establish that Ms. Jeffries's condition worsened after the November 2018 vaccination. The records indicated her health remained poor but stable, with some evidence suggesting her fall risk actually improved post-vaccination. The Special Master concluded that Ms. Jeffries could not meet the burden of proof for significant aggravation, as the record did not demonstrate her condition post-vaccination was worse than before. The case was dismissed. Petitioner counsel was Richard Gage, P.C. Respondent counsel was Ryan Pyles. The Special Master was Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Joyce E. Jeffries, born September 26, 1953, received an influenza vaccine on November 5, 2018. She alleged that this vaccination significantly aggravated a pre-existing Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The claim was filed on February 5, 2021. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, dismissed the case, finding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof for significant aggravation. The medical records did not preponderantly establish that Ms. Jeffries's condition worsened after the November 2018 vaccination; instead, her health remained generally poor but stable, with some evidence suggesting her fall risk improved post-vaccination. The public decision does not describe a specific medical theory connecting the vaccine to the alleged aggravation, nor does it name any medical experts. The outcome was dismissal. Petitioner's counsel was Richard Gage, P.C., and Respondent's counsel was Ryan Pyles. The decision date was November 27, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00884-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-27
Pages: 17
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/31/2023) regarding 52 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 17
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-884V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JOYCE E. JEFFRIES, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
by and through her Power of Attorney *
SHERRY JEFFRIES COMPTON, *
* Filed: October 31, 2023
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for Petitioner.
Ryan Pyles, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1
On February 5, 2021, Joyce E. Jeffries, acting pro se,2 filed this action seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Program”). Petition
(ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”) at 1. Ms. Jeffries was originally alleged to have experienced Guillain-Barré
syndrome (“GBS”) following receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 18, 2017, with
her GBS further aggravated by a second flu vaccine dose administered in November 2018. Pet. at
1. Petitioner later obtained counsel in the matter, and it was conceded that any claim based on the
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, it must 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).
As provided by 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. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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. Id.
2 The case was filed on Ms. Jeffries’s behalf by Sherry Jeffries Compton, who offered a sworn power of attorney to
substantiate her capacity to bring the action for the benefit of Ms. Jeffries. See Durable Financial Power of Attorney,
dated December 10, 2018 (ECF No. 1-4).

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 17
2017 vaccination event would be untimely— leaving only a potential significant aggravation claim
based on the 2018 vaccination.
I ordered Petitioner to show cause why that alternative claim should not be dismissed, since
it did not appear from a preliminary review of the filed records that she could likely establish that
Ms. Jeffries’s GBS worsened in the wake of the November 2018 vaccination. See Order, dated
May 4, 2023 (ECF No. 46) (“Show Cause Order”). The parties have both filed briefs to that end.
See Petitioner’s Memorandum, dated June 23, 2023 (ECF No. 47) (“Mem.”); Respondent’s Brief,
dated August 1, 2023 (ECF No. 49) (“Opp.”). Now, for the reasons set forth below, I dismiss the
case.
I. Factual Background
Ms. Jeffries was born on September 26, 1953 (and was thus 65 years old when she received
the vaccine at issue in 2018). Ex. 1. She had a past medical history of acid reflux, peripheral
neuropathy, vertigo, and chronic headaches. Ex. 2 at 3. In 2017, she had seen her primary care
physician with complaints of right arm and shoulder pain and stiffness, and “frequent
dizzy/imbalance spells that occur 2-3 times per week.” Ex. 2 at 3–4.
Medical History After 2017 Vaccine Dose
On October 18, 2017, Ms. Jeffries received the flu vaccine. Ex. 1.3 Almost two months
later, on December 14, 2017, she saw a treater for hypertension medication management, but also
reported “[r]ight shoulder is back aching, mainly weather related.” Ex. 2 at 5.
Later that same month (from December 25th-27th), Ms. Jeffries was hospitalized after
reporting “pain in her lower back that she thought at first felt like a kidney infection,” and that
“seemed to travel up her back all the way up her back into her left neck and left arm,” along with
weakness, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Ex. 3 at 80, 234. Although she initially displayed
strength in her hands and feet, she also felt paresthesias4 in her feet, and displayed some face
asymmetry (with Ms. Jeffries reporting the latter to have been persisting for some time). Id. at 81.
Peripheral neuropathy was included in her differential upon discharge (although it was also noted
in her history on pre-admission). Id. at 80, 98. These records make no mention of any formal
diagnosis of GBS, however.
3 I refer in exhibit cites to the references provided after counsel appeared in the case and began to file records. Some
of the initial records filed for Ms. Jeffries while the case was pro se are duplicative (and references to any others will
be by ECF docket entry information).
4 Paresthesia is defined as “an abnormal touch sensation, such as burning, prickling, or formication, often in the
absence of an external stimulus.” Paresthesia, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=37052&searchterm=paresthesia (last accessed October 12,
2023)
2

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 17
The next-filed medical records are from June 2018, six months later. Ms. Jeffries now
returned to the hospital, reporting weakness, fatigue, and some respiratory distress, with onset two
days before. Ex. 3 at 403. An exam revealed no neurological deficits other than “muffled” speech.
Id. at 405. The discharge diagnoses were difficulty swallowing, shortness of breath, throat pain,
and “weakness or fatigue.” Id. at 376–77.
A few days later (June 18, 2018), Ms. Jeffries saw her primary care provider with
complaints of difficulty swallowing and breathing, severe headaches, and an inability to stand. She
was deemed to possibly be experiencing sepsis,5 and was instructed to go immediately to the
emergency room. Ex. 2 at 7. No records pertaining to the treatment she received at that time were
filed, but there are references to what transpired at this time in other records. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at
1041 (June 19, 2018 admission history and physical), 1159 (Aug. 27, 2018 record), and 1178 (Sept.
3, 2018 record). It appears (from at least the latter two records) that medical care providers
considered the possibility that Ms. Jeffries had been experiencing some form of axonal GBS status
in the wake of receipt of immunomodulating infusion treatments like IVIG6—although again,
nothing filed in the records overall formally confirms that such a diagnosis was ever made in the
first place.
Three months later, it appears Ms. Jeffries was admitted to “Midtown Center for Health
and Rehabilitation” in Memphis, TN (“Midtown Center”) on September 6, 2018. Ex. 5 at 4. A
history/diagnostic summary chart from the compilation of 2018 records obtained for this case from
Midtown Center report GBS as having been diagnosed that same day (secondary to chronic
pulmonary edema) plus other concerns (generalized muscle weakness, anemia, type 2 diabetes,
morbid obesity, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, GERD, dysphagia, and difficulty walking). Ex. 5 at
5. That same month (as reported in a record from November 2018), Ms. Jeffries complained of
abdominal pain, and had been treated for constipation and a urinary tract infection (“UTI”). Id at
1092–93. She was also then evaluated on the Morse Fall Scale, and received a rating of “Moderate
Risk for Falling.” Id. at 424.
There is another gap in filed records for Ms. Jeffries’s treatment history through November
1, 2018, at which time a nurse practitioner noted (as memorialized in the history section of a
treatment record) that Ms. Jeffries was reporting leg pain and discomfort associated with
wheelchair use, with some commentary for the need for her to avoid dependence on the pain
5 Sepsis, or septicemia, is defined as “systemic disease associated with the presence and persistence of pathogenic
microorganisms or their toxins in the blood. Called also blood poisoning and sepsis.” Septicemia, Dorland’s Medical
Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=45415 (last visited October 12, 2023).
6 “Intravenous Immunoglobulin” is “a therapy treatment for patients with antibody deficiencies. It is prepared from a
pool of immunoglobulins (antibodies) from the plasma of thousands of healthy donors.” Intravenous Immunoglobulin
(IVIG), American College of Rheumatology, https://rheumatology.org/patients/intravenous-immunoglobulin-ivig
(last visited October 12, 2023).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 17
medication she was taking. Ex. 5 at 1094. That history also indicated a prior GBS diagnosis. Ms.
Jeffries expressed the desire to remain an inpatient at the rehabilitation facility in order to gain
strength. Id. An exam performed at this time revealed generalized weakness, with specific left
lower extremity weakness. Id.
Second Receipt of Flu Vaccine in November 2018
On November 5, 2018, Ms. Jeffries received another flu vaccine dose while at Midtown
Rehabilitation. Ex. 4 at 1. But records from subsequent periods that month—or even December
2018 for that matter—do not establish any new health concerns or changes in her status. Thus, a
November 15, 2018 record memorializes Ms. Jeffries’s statement that she believed her existing
pain medication regimen was beginning to work. Ex. 5 at 1090. She repeated that view on
December 5, 2018, when seen for a routine check-up for a medication refill. Id. at 1088. At most,
she indicated some ongoing left shoulder pain plus previously-documented bilateral leg pain, and
otherwise did not report anything different or heightened from a neurologic perspective. Id.
However, at this time she was again evaluated on the Morse Fall Scale, and was now rated at “High
Risk for Falling.” Id. at 422.
Two months thereafter, on February 5, 2019, Ms. Jeffries obtained treatment at Midtown
Center for a possible UTI, with symptoms occurring over the prior two to three days. Ex. 6 at 1611.
She also now reported “pain and feeling a knot on her tailbone,” although treatment advice
provided in response focused on positional changes to avoid pain associated with being seated or
lying down (and thus does not reflect the onset of some truly concerning new neurologic issues).
Id. A week later, she had another check-in visit for a medicine refill, but with no reports of an
increase in or worsening of symptoms. Id. at 1609. She also saw the same nurse practitioner on
February 13, 2019, to review lab work associated with complaints of dysuria (associated
potentially with her UTI). Id. at 1635. Records from March 2019 show she was again evaluated
on the Morse Fall Scale, but now rated as “Moderate Risk for Falling,” one category down from
her December 2018 rating. Ex. 6 at 840. Nothing can be discerned from these records that would
support the conclusion that Ms. Jeffries’s health had taken a turn for the worse—or that the vaccine
she had received two months prior had negatively impacted her.
Records from April and May 2019 show that Ms. Jeffries was examined in the context of
medication refill requests. Ex. 6 at 1607 (April 2019) and 1603 (May 2019). A history of “chronic
pain after developing [GBS]” is referenced—but (once again) no overarching change in her
medical status is evident in this record. Id. She was later evaluated on the Morse Fall Scale in June
2019, and now received a rating of “Low Risk of Falling,” a step down from her previous rating
in March 2019. Ex. 6 at 252.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 17
On July 1, 2019, Ms. Jeffries had an initial evaluation with physiatrist Syed R. Ahmed,
D.O. Ex. 6 at 1776–78. At this time, she repeated concerns about the kinds of symptoms she
complained of before her 2018 (and thus pre-vaccination) rehabilitation hospitalization—leg
weakness and tiredness. These are the same symptoms associated with the GBS diagnosis that
some records, as discussed above, allude to but do not directly establish. However, the record noted
that she had likely experienced “debility” connected to a long in-patient admission. Id. at 1776.
She also reported “intermittent numbness and weakness in the [bilateral] legs, along with some
numbness in the lower back and tingling,” plus some arm and shoulder pain. Id. Dr. Ahmed
assessed her with “ambulatory and ADL dysfunction related to [GBS] with lower>upper limb
paresis and neuropathic pain, prolonged hospital course/debility, left trapezius strain.” Id. at 1777.
This record makes no mention of a change in her overall course, or any distinction between her
condition pre and post-November 2018 vaccination.
Ms. Jeffries’s evaluations in September and October 2019 contained nearly identical
observations to those found in the records of earlier visits for medication refills. Ex. 6 at 1594
(August 2019), and 1598 (October 2019). Her August 2019 visit notes that she was hospitalized
“due to generalized weakness and difficulty swallowing and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré
Syndrome [sic] to which she has regained a large amount of her strength.” Ex. 6 at 1594 (emphasis
added). Ms. Jeffries was evaluated again on the Morse Fall September of 2019. Ex. 6 at 255
(September 2019). She was again categorized as “Low Risk for Falling.” Id.
Beyond September 2019, the records contain visit notes from nurse practitioner and
physiatrist visits through December 2019. The nurse practitioner’s note is nearly identical to
previous notes for medication refill visits. Ex. 6 at 1598 (visit on October 9, 2019) The physiatrist’s
notes are very similar to each other: documenting Ms. Jeffries’s medical history, including her
GBS diagnosis, and noting continuing issues with back pain. Id. at 1724–1773 (physiatrist notes
from visits every few days in October 2019 through the end of December 2019.) Recommendations
for treating her back pain include the use of ice, creams, changes to her physical therapy regimen,
and referrals to specialists. Id. Beyond that, Ms. Jeffries had a brief course of foot pain in October
2019. Id. at 1728–32.
Besides these records, Petitioner has offered some witness statements7 to substantiate her
claim that Ms. Jeffries experienced worsening after the November 2018 vaccination. See Affidavit
of Barbara Royals, dated August 22, 2023, filed as Ex. 13 (ECF No. 50-1) (“Royals Aff.”);
Declaration of Linell Jeffries, dated September 14, 2023, filed as Ex. 14 (ECF No. 51-1) (“Jeffries
Decl.”).
Ms. Royals reports providing physical therapy (“PT”) to Ms. Jeffries in the fall of 2018.
Royals Aff. at 1. Ms. Jeffries has trouble with PT “because of her illness,” but made a brave attempt
7 No declaration or sworn witness statement from Ms. Jeffries herself was ever filed in this case.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 17
overall to perform, and began to see improvement (although the specific timeframe in which this
was observed is not set forth). Id. She eventually completed her exercises, and was even able to
take some assisted steps—but then “became too ill and too weak to continue to participate” in PT
and was, to Ms. Royal’s knowledge, removed from the list of PT patients. Id. Thus, Ms. Royals
attests to “the sudden marked downturn” in Ms. Jeffries’s recovery, but does not mention
vaccination or pinpoint a timeframe in which the downturn occurred. Id. at 2.
Linell Jeffries is Ms. Jeffries’s brother. Jeffries Decl. at 1. He corroborates record evidence
establishing that Ms. Jeffries was an in-patient at Midtown Center in September 2018, and received
medical treatment and PT in association with unspecified “life-threatening illnesses” she had
experienced prior to that time. Id. By November/December 2018, however, “it was obvious” that
she could no longer complete PT, and proved too weak to leave her bed. Id. Mr. Jeffries adds that
he learned from a Midtown Center nurse that Ms. Jeffries had “accidentally” received the flu
vaccine (although he does not specify when), and that it had been determined that she should not
again receive it. Id. at 2. Since then, Ms. Jeffries has remained at the Midtown Center—weak,
suffering from limb pain, and still confined to bedrest. Id. (No additional records were filed in this
case, however, that would corroborate that contention).
II. Procedural History
This case was originally assigned to another special master, and at that time it was noted
that Petitioner (who began the matter as a pro se litigant) needed to file medical records to support
her claim. ECF No. 11. Once the case was transferred to me, I pointed out the continued lack of
evidentiary support, but also (and as addressed in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report) that any claim
based on an October 2017 vaccination was likely time-barred under the Vaccine Act’s three-year
limitations period. ECF No. 27. To be a viable Table claim, onset must have occurred no later than
December 2017, based on the Petitioner’s allegations—and hence the claim in question needed to
have been filed before December 2020 (whereas this case was begun in February 2021). Pet. at 1–
2. However, it seemed possible that a significant aggravation claim based on the alleged
subsequent November 2018 vaccination would be viable (given that the case was filed in February
2021, and hence within the limitations period)—if proof of that vaccination could be offered. Pet.
at 3.
Petitioner thereafter spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to find the missing
proof, risking dismissal of the case in the process, but by the end of April 2023 had filed records
that did seem to establish both the November 2018 vaccination and some evidence of an earlier
GBS diagnosis (although as my review of the record above should indicate, it is hardly crystal
clear from this record when that diagnosis occurred). See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 1; Ex. 5 at 970. But because
the alleged aggravation was not similarly evident from the record, I issued a show cause order, and
the parties have now responded.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 7 of 17
III. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner has offered a two-page brief arguing for the claim’s viability. See generally
Mem. In so doing, she endeavors to identify a cognizable difference in Ms. Jeffries’s pre and post-
vaccination health. She specifically points to Ms. Jeffries’s “fall scale rating,” observing that this
rating (which presumably is an assessment of the risk of falling) as provided at the time of her
Midtown center rehabilitation admission in early September 2018 was lower than in December
2018 (at which time her hospital discharge was also deemed inappropriate). Mem. at 1; Ex. 5 at
424 (December 2018 fall risk rating of 55) and 422 (September 2018 fall risk rating of 35). Thus,
the intervening November 2018 vaccination likely worsened her course overall. And she notes her
own personal observations of Ms. Jeffries’s worsening, although her sworn declaration does not
set them forth in any detail.8 Petitioner’s Declaration at 1.
Respondent asks for the dismissal of the Petition. He maintains that the record lacks support
(either in the form of a treater view or other record) that Ms. Jeffries experienced a GBS worsening,
or secondary relapse or flare, associated with the early November 2018 vaccination. Opp. at 8. In
responding to the Show Cause Order, Respondent notes, the Petitioner has identified no new
symptomatology that represents a relapse of GBS, nor has she alleged with particularity even
general symptomatology that reflects post-vaccination. Instead, the record uniformly establishes
that Ms. Jeffries remained at her baseline state of health in the months after November 2018. The
fact that overall her health remained sub-par is not evidence of worsening sufficient to establish a
causation claim of significant aggravation. And Respondent denies that the witness vouching for
Ms. Jeffries’s worsening can fill the evidentiary holes. Id.
IV. Applicable Legal Standards
A. Petitioner’s Overall Burden in Vaccine Program Cases
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either: (1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations in question within a statutorily prescribed period of time
or, in the alternative, (2) that his illnesses were actually caused by a vaccine (a “Non-Table
Injury”). See Sections 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1), and 14(a), as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; §
11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.
8 Rather, Petitioner’s declaration only addresses the difficulty she has faced in obtaining Ms. Jeffries’s medical records
from Midtown Rehabilitation with power of attorney, but does not discuss her health issues as related to the vaccine
claim. Petitioner’s Declaration at 1–2.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 8 of 17
Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).9
Although the Vaccine Table only sets forth the claim of GBS occurring after administration of the
flu vaccine, the Act would appear also to permit a claim of significant aggravation as well
(assuming preexisting GBS could be demonstrated, plus onset in the timeframe set for the Table
claim). Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i).
For both Table and Non-Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners bear a “preponderance
of the evidence” burden of proof. Section 13(1)(a). That is, a petitioner must offer evidence that
leads the “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence
before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s
existence.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 n.2; see also Snowbank Enter. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct.
476, 486 (1984) (mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard).
Proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 931 F.2d
867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, a petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine was “not
only [the] but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344,
1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). A petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his assertions;
rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent
physician. Section 13(a)(1).
In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a
Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal
Circuit in Althen v. Sec'y of Health and Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005): “(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
proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.”
Each Althen prong requires a different showing. Under Althen prong one, petitioners must
provide a “reputable medical theory,” demonstrating that the vaccine received can cause the type
of injury alleged. Pafford, 451 F.3d at 1355–56 (citations omitted). To satisfy this prong, a
petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.”
Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must
only be “legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.” Id. at 549.
9 Decisions of special masters (some of which I reference in this ruling) constitute persuasive but not binding authority.
Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998). By contrast, Federal Circuit rulings concerning
legal issues are binding on special masters. Guillory v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 59 Fed. Cl. 121, 124 (2003),
aff’d 104 F. App’x. 712 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Spooner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-159V, 2014 WL
504728, at *7 n.12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2014).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 9 of 17
Petitioners may satisfy the first Althen prong without resort to medical literature,
epidemiological studies, demonstration of a specific mechanism, or a generally accepted medical
theory. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing
Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325–26). Special masters, despite their expertise, are not empowered by
statute to conclusively resolve what are essentially thorny scientific and medical questions, and
thus scientific evidence offered to establish Althen prong one is viewed “not through the lens of
the laboratorian, but instead from the vantage point of the Vaccine Act’s preponderant evidence
standard.” Id. at 1380. Accordingly, special masters must take care not to increase the burden
placed on petitioners in offering a scientific theory linking vaccine to injury. Contreras, 121 Fed.
Cl. at 245 (“[p]lausibility . . . in many cases may be enough to satisfy Althen prong one” (emphasis
in original)).
In discussing the evidentiary standard applicable to the first Althen prong, the Federal
Circuit has consistently rejected the contention that it can be satisfied merely by establishing the
proposed causal theory’s scientific or medical plausibility. See Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 941 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019); LaLonde v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 746 F.3d
1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[h]owever, in the past we have made clear that simply identifying a
‘plausible’ theory of causation is insufficient for a petitioner to meet her burden of proof.” (citing
Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322)); see also Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 2023 WL
4117370, at *4 (Fed. Cl. May 18, 2023) (“[t]he standard has been preponderance for nearly four
decades”), appeal docketed, No. 23-1816 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2023). And petitioners always have
the ultimate burden of establishing their overall Vaccine Act claim with preponderant evidence.
W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted);
Tarsell v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 782, 793 (2017) (noting that Moberly “addresses the
petitioner’s overall burden of proving causation-in-fact under the Vaccine Act” by a
preponderance standard).
The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect, usually
supported by facts derived from a petitioner’s medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu,
569 F.3d at 1375–77; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326; Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956
F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In establishing that a vaccine “did cause” injury, the opinions
and views of the injured party’s treating physicians are entitled to some weight. Andreu, 569 F.3d
at 1367; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326 (“medical records and medical opinion testimony are favored
in vaccine cases, as treating physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether a
‘logical sequence of cause and effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury’”)
(quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280). Medical records are generally viewed as particularly
trustworthy evidence, since they are created contemporaneously with the treatment of the patient.
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
9

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 10 of 17
Medical records and statements of a treating physician, however, do not per se bind the
special master to adopt the conclusions of such an individual, even if they must be considered and
carefully evaluated. Section 13(b)(1) (providing that “[a]ny such diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary shall not be binding on the special master or court”); Snyder v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 746 n.67 (2009) (“there is nothing . . . that mandates
that the testimony of a treating physician is sacrosanct—that it must be accepted in its entirety and
cannot be rebutted”). As with expert testimony offered to establish a theory of causation, the
opinions or diagnoses of treating physicians are only as trustworthy as the reasonableness of their
suppositions or bases. The views of treating physicians should be weighed against other, contrary
evidence also present in the record—including conflicting opinions among such individuals.
Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 742, 749 (2011) (not arbitrary or capricious
for special master to weigh competing treating physicians’ conclusions against each other), aff’d,
698 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Veryzer v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-522V,
2011 WL 1935813, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011), mot. for review den’d, 100 Fed.
Cl. 344, 356 (2011), aff’d without opinion, 475 F. Appx. 765 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The third Althen prong requires establishing a “proximate temporal relationship” between
the vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1281. That term has been equated to the
phrase “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A petitioner must offer “preponderant
proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given the medical
understanding of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” de Bazan
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what
is a medically acceptable timeframe must align with the theory of how the relevant vaccine can
cause an injury (Althen prong one’s requirement). Id. at 1352; Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 542 (2011), recons. den’d after remand, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d
mem., 503 F. Appx. 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koehn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-355V,
2013 WL 3214877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2013), mot. for rev. den’d (Fed. Cl. Dec. 3,
2013), aff’d, 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
B. Elements of Significant Aggravation Claim
Where a petitioner alleges significant aggravation of a preexisting condition, the Althen
test is expanded, and the petitioner has additional evidentiary burdens to satisfy. Loving v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (2009). In Loving, the Court of Federal Claims
combined the Althen test with the test from Whitecotton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 81 F.3d
1099, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1996), which related to on-Table significant aggravation cases. The resultant
“significant aggravation” test has six components, which require establishing:
(1) the person’s condition prior to administration of the vaccine, (2) the person’s
current condition (or the condition following the vaccination if that is also
10

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 11 of 17
pertinent), (3) whether the person’s current condition constitutes a ‘significant
aggravation’ of the person's condition prior to vaccination, (4) a medical theory
causally connecting such a significantly worsened condition to the vaccination, (5)
a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason
for the significant aggravation, and (6) a showing of a proximate temporal
relationship between the vaccination and the significant aggravation.
Loving, 86 Fed. Cl. at 144; see also W.C., 704 F.3d at 1357 (holding that “the Loving case provides
the correct framework for evaluating off-table significant aggravation claims”). In effect, the last
three prongs of the Loving test correspond to the three Althen prongs.
In Sharpe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 964 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal
Circuit further elaborated on the Loving framework. Under Prong (3) of the Loving test, A
Petitioner need not demonstrate an expected outcome, but merely that her current-post vaccination
condition was worse than pre-vaccination. Sharpe, 964 F.3d at 1081. And a claimant may make
out a prima facie case of significant aggravation overall without eliminating a preexisting condition
as the potential cause of her significantly aggravated injury (although the Circuit’s recasting of the
significant aggravation standard still permits Respondent to attempt to establish alternative cause,
after the burden of proof has shifted to Respondent). Id. at 1083.
C. Legal Standards Governing Factual Determinations
The process for making determinations in Vaccine Program cases regarding factual issues
begins with consideration of the medical records. Section 11(c)(2). The special master is required
to consider “all [ ] relevant medical and scientific evidence contained in the record,” including
“any diagnosis, conclusion, medical judgment, or autopsy or coroner's report which is contained
in the record regarding the nature, causation, and aggravation of the petitioner's illness, disability,
injury, condition, or death,” as well as the “results of any diagnostic or evaluative test which are
contained in the record and the summaries and conclusions.” Section 13(b)(1)(A). The special
master is then required to weigh the evidence presented, including contemporaneous medical
records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (determining that it is within the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford
greater weight to contemporaneous medical records than to other evidence, such as oral testimony
surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination
is evidenced by a rational determination).
As noted by the Federal Circuit, “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as
trustworthy evidence.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; Doe/70 v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 95
Fed. Cl. 598, 608 (2010) (“[g]iven the inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and his
contemporaneous medical records, the special master's decision to rely on petitioner's medical
11

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 12 of 17
records was rational and consistent with applicable law”), aff'd, Rickett v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 468 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential opinion). A series of linked
propositions explains why such records deserve some weight: (i) sick people visit medical
professionals; (ii) sick people attempt to honestly report their health problems to those
professionals; and (iii) medical professionals record what they are told or observe when examining
their patients in as accurate a manner as possible, so that they are aware of enough relevant facts
to make appropriate treatment decisions. Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V,
2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013); Cucuras v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 537, 543 (1992), aff'd, 993 F.2d at 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[i]t strains reason to
conclude that petitioners would fail to accurately report the onset of their daughter's symptoms”).
Accordingly, if the medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, then they should
be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03–1585V, 2005 WL
6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). Indeed, contemporaneous medical records
are often found to be deserving of greater evidentiary weight than oral testimony—especially
where such testimony conflicts with the record evidence. Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; see also
Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d
1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. den'd, Murphy v. Sullivan, 506 U.S. 974 (1992) (citing United States
v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1947) (“[i]t has generally been held that oral
testimony which is in conflict with contemporaneous documents is entitled to little evidentiary
weight.”)).
However, the Federal Circuit has also noted that there is no formal “presumption” that
records are accurate or superior on their face to other forms of evidence. Kirby v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). There are certainly situations in which
compelling oral or written testimony (provided in the form of an affidavit or declaration) may be
more persuasive than written records, such as where records are deemed to be incomplete or
inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006) (“like any
norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute and
must yield where the factual predicates for its application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie, 2005 WL
6117475, at *19 (“[w]ritten records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less
deference than those which are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733)).
Ultimately, a determination regarding a witness's credibility is needed when determining the
weight that such testimony should be afforded. Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1379; Bradley v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
When witness testimony is offered to overcome the presumption of accuracy afforded to
contemporaneous medical records, such testimony must be “consistent, clear, cogent, and
compelling.” Sanchez, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 90–2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In determining the
12

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 13 of 17
accuracy and completeness of medical records, the Court of Federal Claims has listed four possible
explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person's failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened
during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional's failure to document everything
reported to her or him; (3) a person's faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony;
or (4) a person's purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203–04 (2013), aff'd, 746 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In making
a determination regarding whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records
or other evidence, such as testimony at hearing, there must be evidence that this decision was the
result of a rational determination. Burns, 3 F.3d at 417.
D. Standards for Ruling on the Record
I am resolving Petitioner’s claim on the filed record. The Vaccine Act and Rules not only
contemplate but encourage special masters to decide petitions on the papers where (in the exercise
of their discretion) they conclude that doing so will properly and fairly resolve the case. Section
12(d)(2)(D); Vaccine Rule 8(d). The decision to rule on the record in lieu of hearing has been
affirmed on appeal. Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2020); see also Hooker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-472V, 2016 WL 3456435, at *21
n.19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 19, 2016) (citing numerous cases where special masters decided
case on the papers in lieu of hearing and that decision was upheld). I am simply not required to
hold a hearing in every matter, no matter the preferences of the parties. Hovey v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 397, 402–03 (1997) (determining that special master acted within his
discretion in denying evidentiary hearing); Burns, 3 F.3d at 417; Murphy v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 71500, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 1991).
ANALYSIS
Despite a more-than-fair opportunity, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ms. Jeffries’s
GBS was worsened by her November 2018 vaccination. This is a fact determination—the medical
records, viewed in their totality, do not establish worsening. The claim thus fails on the second and
third Loving prongs (or, if viewed solely as a Table claim, relying on the flu vaccine-GBS
construction, on Petitioner’s fundamental inability to prove significant aggravation).
A threshold issue is whether Ms. Jeffries ever did experience GBS—and if so, when.
Earlier in the case’s life, Petitioner had hoped to establish that the October 2017 flu vaccine Ms.
Jeffries had received had caused GBS, with onset occurring “[w]ithin a few weeks” after—
13

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 14 of 17
meaning later that same fall. Pet. at 1 ¶3.10 Such a claim would be untimely, of course, since the
case (filed in February 2021) was initiated more than three years after onset. Section 16(a)(2). In
fact, the record (at least as filed in the case) suggests little evidence of neuropathic symptoms that
could support a GBS diagnosis before late December 2017 (see, e.g., Ex. 3 at 80–81, 98, 234).
Thus, not only was a claim based on the 2017 vaccination untimely, but the claim itself would
likely have failed for other reasons, since it appears onset likely fell outside the Table’s three to
42-day timeframe, measured from date of vaccination.
Petitioner therefore limited her claim to the contention that a second flu vaccine dose
received the following year worsened Ms. Jeffries’s GBS. Certainly a claim based on a November
2018 vaccination and filed in the winter of 2021, as here, would be timely. But the question of the
status of Ms. Jeffries’s health when she received the second vaccine dose is still pertinent to the
claim. GBS is not generally deemed a relapsing or chronic condition, even if it leaves some
neurologic sequela in its wake.11 See, for example, Blackburn v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 10-410V, 2015 WL 425935 at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2015) (distinguishing the
symptoms of GBS/AIDP from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and noting
that GBS is typically acute and monophasic). Indeed, if Ms. Jeffries’s GBS had occurred in
December 2017, she would not still be suffering from it almost a year later. And even if the record
preponderantly supported the conclusion that Ms. Jeffries experienced GBS a second time, in June
or September 2018 (hence eight-plus weeks before vaccination), this would more likely than not
be too temporally attenuated to when her worsening manifested to constitute significant
aggravation. All these questions weaken the contention that the first Loving prong can be met—
or, if the claim is considered solely as a Table claim, that Ms. Jeffries was suffering from GBS at
the time of her November 2018 vaccination.
But even if I assume that Ms. Jeffries only experienced GBS closer in time to her November
2018 vaccination—or that she merely seeks to establish that the vaccine generally “worsened” her
health in some nonspecific manner12 - the record filed in this case does not establish that her
condition worsened thereafter. Rather, the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the
conclusion that Ms. Jeffries’s health “baseline” was generally poor in the fall of 2018—as much
due to her lengthy convalescence as to any lingering neuropathic symptoms – and remained so
thereafter, with some occasional “ups and downs,” but no general worsening trend.
10 This is completely consistent with GBS’s understood acute and monophasic character—as well as the fact that a
Table GBS claim after receipt of the flu vaccine requires proof of onset no later than 42 days post-vaccination. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(D)
11 Although there does exist a chronic peripheral neuropathy, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy
(“CIDP”), Petitioner does not allege this as Ms. Jeffries’s injury—and the record does not support it as a credible
explanation for Ms. Jeffries’s health issues.
12 Such a contention would, however, run into the problem of alleging symptoms without identification of an actual
injury.
14

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 15 of 17
That record establishes a history of chronic pain pre-vaccination, with some treater
concerns for over-medication as well. Ex. 5 at 1100, 1109, 1094 (November 1, 2018 notes stating
“[d]id explain to pt I room that she needs to attempt to step down from her pain meds in an attempt
to wean off of them”) and 1092 (November 8, 2018 discussion of weaning from 20, to 15, to 10
mg pf Oxycodone every 6 hours, and sister’s agreement that Ms. Jeffries “needs to attempt to wean
down from meds before discharge home.”) Nevertheless, there is also post-vaccination evidence
that treatments were providing her some relief. Id. at 1088.
Thereafter, records from throughout 2019 emphasize Ms. Jeffries’s continuing history of
chronic pain, the need for orthopedic interventions for some limb-specific pain, and her medication
regimen. See Ex. 6 at 1609 (February 2019), 1607 (April 2019), 1603 (May 2019), 1601 (June
2019), 1594 (August 2019), and 1598 (October 2019). The amount of oxycodone Ms. Jeffries took
stayed consistent during this time: two 5 mg pills every six hours. Id. Notably, this a lower dose
than she was taking in the month before receiving the vaccine. See Ex. 5 at 1100 and 1109 (notes
from October 2018 appointments). The August 2019 notes even state that she was hospitalized
“due to generalized weakness and difficulty swallowing and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré
Syndrome [sic] to which she has regained a large amount of her strength.” Ex. 6 at 1594. Thus, it
can be ascertained from the record that Ms. Jeffries’s health was overall not worse post than pre-
vaccination (even if throughout she faced consistent medical issues).
The record also does not establish any notable post-vaccination incident in November or
December 2018 that demarcates a decline in Ms. Jeffries’s condition. Nor does it establish a second
(or third) “flare” of GBS any time after the second vaccination. Of course, GBS is not characterized
by a remitting/relapsing course in any event. See, for example, Blackburn, 2015 WL 425935 at
*25 (finding that Petitioner’s injury was likely not GBS when the treatment record showed a
relapsing course of symptoms). It is therefore not evident how any Petitioner would ever
demonstrate a vaccine worsened GBS, absent evidence that the vaccination occurred extremely
close-in-time to the claimant’s onset and/or initial treatment.
Petitioner was provided the opportunity to show—by citation to diagnostic comments in
the record or other evidence—that there is reason to proceed with this case. But all she has done
is cherry-pick an isolated item or two of evidence—proof relating to a predicted “fall rate” from a
pre-vaccination period, or a recommendation to delay discharge – and then propose that proof of
worsening is found in this record. But not only are these not contextualized in comparison to the
greater medical record I have summarized, they are themselves undermined by evidence from that
record that Ms. Jeffries’s fall risk actually improved post-vaccination and over time. See, e.g., Ex.
5 at 422 (“High” fall risk rating in December 2018), and 840 (“Moderate” fall risk rating in March
2019), and 252 (“Low” fall risk rating in June 2019). Such evidence does not preponderantly
suggest worsening, given the totality of the evidence as reviewed above.
15

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 16 of 17
The witness statements filed in this case are similarly unhelpful in establishing worsening.
The Petitioner (Ms. Jeffries’s sister) makes a statement describing the difficulty she has faced in
obtaining Ms. Jeffries’s records from Midtown Rehabilitation Center. The statement does not
discuss specifics of any changes in the course of Ms. Jeffries’s health in the relevant timeframe.
See Sherry Compton’s Sworn Declaration at 1–2 (ECF No. 41-1). The statements from Ms.
Jeffries’s physical therapist and brother make only general references to pain and weakness that
eventually prevented Ms. Jeffries from getting out of bed. See Pet. Ex. 13 and Ex. 14. They are not
specific enough, in a temporal sense or by reference to details, to demonstrate any worsening
attributable specifically to GBS.
Thus, Petitioner cannot establish under Loving prong three that Ms. Jeffries’s condition
post-vaccination was worse than before (again—applying the exceedingly-generous assumption
that as of November 2018 she was still suffering from GBS, as opposed at most to its sequelae),
and therefore the claim is highly unlikely to succeed—justifying dismissal.
In so holding, I emphasize the more than fair opportunity Petitioner was given to marshal
evidence in favor of her claim. This case was filed almost three years ago. Although counsel only
appeared for Petitioner in the summer of 2022, she was still provided ample time to obtain relevant
records—and then to lay out some evidentiary roadmap to demonstrate why the claim is viable.
Instead, she has filed a thin, unpersuasive brief that relies on limited evidence from an overall
record that mainly underscores Ms. Jeffries’s consistently poor health. It is not improper to dismiss
such a claim – where the record establishes only that a covered vaccine was received in the midst
of treatment of ongoing and persistent concerns about the injured party’s health, but not that the
party’s course spiraled downward post-vaccination.
CONCLUSION
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner cannot carry her burden of
proof on a claim of significant aggravation based on the November 2018 vaccination at issue, and
therefore dismissal of the claim is required. 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.13
13 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.
16

Case 1:21-vv-00884-UNJ Document 56 Filed 11/27/23 Page 17 of 17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
17