VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01056
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01056
Petitioner: Rachel Garcia
Filed: 2021-03-11
Decided: 2023-05-30
Vaccine: Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2018-03-09
Condition: optic neuritis and vision loss
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Rachel Garcia filed a petition on March 11, 2021, alleging that she suffered optic neuritis and vision loss as a result of a Hepatitis B vaccine received on March 9, 2018. After initiating the claim, Petitioner submitted medical records and affidavits. Respondent filed a report on December 23, 2022, recommending dismissal. The court issued an order on January 17, 2023, directing Petitioner to file an expert report addressing the diagnosis. On April 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report indicating she would not be filing an expert report due to challenges with the accuracy of the diagnosis and weighing damages. Petitioner sought to withdraw her claim to conserve judicial resources and stated her intent to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment to preserve her right to file a civil action in the future. The court found that dismissal was appropriate under RCFC 41(a)(2) as Petitioner could not prevail due to diagnostic challenges and insufficient proof. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01056-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-30
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/01/2023) regarding 65 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01056-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1056V
(not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RACHEL GARCIA, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
*
Petitioner, * Filed: May 1, 2023
*
v. *
*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mari C. Bush, Mari C. Bush LLC, Boulder, CO, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On March 11, 2021, Rachel Garcia filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that
she suffered from optic neuritis and vision loss as a result of the Hepatitis B vaccine she received
on March 9, 2018. Petition (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”) at Preamble. After the claim’s initiation, Petitioner
submitted pertinent medical records and affidavits. On December 23, 2022, Respondent filed his
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002,
44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2018). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Case 1:21-vv-01056-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3
Rule 4(c) Report, recommending that compensation was not appropriate in this matter, and the
case should be dismissed. See Report, dated Dec. 23, 2022 (ECF No. 63).
On January 17, 2023, I issued an Order directing Petitioner to file an Expert Report
addressing the diagnosis of Petitioner’s post-vaccination injury. See Order, dated Jan. 17, 2023.
On April 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a Status Report noting her efforts to consult with treating care
providers and experts, but further indicating that she will not be filing an Expert Report considering
challenges in the accuracy of the diagnosis and in weighing damages. See Status Report, dated
Apr. 27, 2023 (ECF No 64) at 1. Petitioner stated that she seeks to withdraw her claim so as to not
waste the time, funds, and judicial resources of the Program. Id. at 2. And she expressed a desire
to exercise her rights to file a civil action in the future, and thus (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
21(a)(2)) she intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against her. Id.
The provisions under the Vaccine Rules for ending a case before a decision has been issued
are largely inapplicable herein. Petitioner may no longer avail herself of Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A),
which governs voluntary dismissals before service of the Rule 4(c) Report, and Respondent has
not stipulated to dismissal under Rule 21(a)(1)(B). In addition, even if the parties had so stipulated,
Petitioner seeks entry of a judgment, whereas Vaccine Rule 21(a) would only result in an “order
concluding proceedings.” Rule 21(a)(3).
Accordingly, the only remaining channel for the relief Petitioner requests is a “motion
seeking dismissal”—a mechanism for ending cases that other claimants have used, either because
the claim appears unlikely to succeed, or simply because the petitioner prefers not to continue with
the claim, but seeks to terminate the action after the time to act under Rule 21 has passed. See, e.g.,
Goldie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1476V, 2019 WL 6045647, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 11, 2019). Dismissal of Vaccine Program cases at this particular stage of the litigation
is not uncommon. Indeed, the rules of the Court of Federal Claims (which are properly applied
herein) permit dismissal of claims at a petitioner’s/plaintiff’s request and “on terms that the court
considers proper.” RCFC 41(a)(2).
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 has, however, determined that she would not
be able to prevail in this matter due to challenges with the accuracy of the optic neuritis diagnosis
following vaccination. And a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on her claim
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical records or by a medical opinion.
Section 13(a)(1). These materials have not been submitted, and Petitioner acknowledges she
cannot obtain them or otherwise succeed.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01056-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3
For these reasons, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s claim for
compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court
shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing
the right to seek review.
3