VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02051
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02051
Petitioner: R.M.H.
Filed: 2021-10-21
Decided: 2025-07-22
Vaccine: MMRV
Vaccination date: 2018-10-21
Condition: acute autoimmune encephalitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 21, 2021, Raizy and Chaim Halberstam, as parents of R.M.H., filed a petition alleging that their minor child suffered acute autoimmune encephalitis as a result of an October 21, 2018 MMRV vaccination. An amended petition filed on March 24, 2023, alleged that the autoimmune encephalitis was caused-in-fact by the October 21, 2018 MMRV vaccination and significantly aggravated by a subsequent August 28, 2019 Tdap vaccination. Petitioners submitted medical records and an expert report from neurologist Yuval Shafrir, M.D. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed competing medical opinions from neuroimmunologist Michael Kruer, M.D., and immunologist You-Wen He, M.D., Ph.D. Special Master Daniel T. Horner issued a preliminary view on May 20, 2025, noting that Dr. Shafrir's opinion did not adequately support the presence of autoimmune encephalitis and that petitioners would likely have difficulty proving entitlement. The Special Master stated that the proceedings strongly suggested petitioners would have a very difficult time developing the record with credible medical opinion and were unlikely to prevail. On June 24, 2025, petitioners filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their claim, acknowledging they would be unlikely to prove entitlement. Special Master Horner granted the motion, dismissing the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. The public decision does not describe the onset, specific symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner counsel was Renee J. Gentry of the Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington University Law School. Respondent counsel was Ryan Pohlman Miller of the U.S. Department of Justice. The case was dismissed without an award.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that R.M.H. suffered acute autoimmune encephalitis caused-in-fact by an October 21, 2018 MMRV vaccination and significantly aggravated by an August 28, 2019 Tdap vaccination. The theory of causation was off-Table. Petitioners submitted medical records and an expert report from neurologist Yuval Shafrir, M.D. Respondent filed competing expert reports from neuroimmunologist Michael Kruer, M.D., and immunologist You-Wen He, M.D., Ph.D. Special Master Daniel T. Horner noted in a preliminary order that Dr. Shafrir's opinion did not adequately support the presence of autoimmune encephalitis and that petitioners would likely have difficulty proving entitlement. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss, acknowledging they would be unlikely to prove entitlement. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case. The public decision does not detail the specific medical mechanism, nor does it provide an award breakdown. Petitioner counsel was Renee J. Gentry, and respondent counsel was Ryan Pohlman Miller. The decision date was July 22, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02051-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-22
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/25/2025) regarding 89 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02051-UNJ Document 90 Filed 07/22/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2051V
Filed: June 25, 2025
RAIZY HALBERSTAM and CHAIM Special Master Horner
HALBERSTAM as mother and father of
R.M.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Renee J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington University Law School,
Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ryan Pohlman Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On October 21, 2021, petitioners, Raizy and Chaim Halberstam, filed a petition
on behalf of their minor child, R.M.H., under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (2012) (“Vaccine Act”),2 alleging that she suffered acute
autoimmune encephalitis as a result of her October 21, 2018 mumps, measles, rubella,
varicella (“MMRV”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) On March 24, 2023, petitioners filed an
amended petition alleging that R.M.H.’s autoimmune encephalitis was caused-in-fact by
her October 21, 2018 MMRV vaccination and significantly aggravated by her August 28,
2019 tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. (ECF No. 34.)
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will 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 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the document 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, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-10, et seq.

Case 1:21-vv-02051-UNJ Document 90 Filed 07/22/25 Page 2 of 3
I. Procedural History
This case initially assigned to another special master. (ECF Nos. 39-40.)
Between February and November of 2022, petitioners filed medical records in support
of their claim. (ECF Nos. 10-12, 14, 16-19, 22-23, 27-29; Exs. 1-24.) On March 29,
2023, petitioners filed an affidavit by petitioner, Chaim Halberstam. (ECF No. 37; Ex.
25.) Thereafter, petitioners filed additional medical records. (ECF Nos. 46-47, 49-53,
56-60, 62-69, 72; Exs. 27-58.) Petitioners filed a Statement of Completion on June 6,
2024. (ECF No. 73.)
On June 27, 2024, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against
compensation. (ECF No. 74.) On December 13, 2024, petitioners filed an expert report
by neurologist Yuval Shafrir, M.D., along with accompanying medical literature. (ECF
Nos. 78-80; Exs. 59-82.) Thereafter, this case was reassigned to the undersigned.
(ECF Nos. 82-83.) On April 23, 2025, respondent filed experts reports by
neuroimmunologist Michael Kruer, M.D., and immunologist You-Wen He, M.D., Ph.D.
(ECF No. 65; Exs. A-D.)
On May 20, 2025, I issued a scheduling order wherein I discussed my
preliminary view of the critical issues with petitioners’ presentation. (ECF No. 87.)
Specifically, I noted that Dr. Shafrir’s opinion did not support the presence of an
autoimmune encephalitis, as had been alleged, and that his “bare assertion that R.M.H.
suffered an unidentifiable, yet pathologically unified, course of deterioration is
inadequate to support a claim as a matter of law.” (Id. at 2.) I further explained that “the
proceedings so far strongly suggest that [petitioners] will have a very difficult time
developing the record of this case with credible medical opinion and are unlikely to
prevail.” (Id.)
On June 24, 2025, petitioners filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing their
Petition. (ECF No. 88.) Petitioners indicate that an investigation of the facts and
science supporting their claim has demonstrated that they will be unlikely to prove
entitlement to compensation. (Id. at 1.) Petitioners further state that they understand “a
decision by the Special Master dismissing their Petition will result in a judgment against
them” and that “[t]hey have been advised that such judgment will end all of their rights in
the Vaccine Program.” (Id.)
II. Discussion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners must prove either
(1) that R.M.H. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that R.M.H. suffered an injury that
was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A); § 300aa-11(c)(1).
To satisfy the burden of proof for causation in fact, petitioners must show by
preponderant evidence: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and
2

Case 1:21-vv-02051-UNJ Document 90 Filed 07/22/25 Page 3 of 3
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 prohibits the undersigned from ruling for
petitioners based solely on their allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or
medical opinion. § 300aa-13(a)(1).
No “Table Injury” was alleged in this case, nor was there sufficient evidence in
the record to support such an allegation. Additionally, the record does not contain
preponderant evidence that the alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by vaccination.
Although petitioners offered the medical opinion of an expert neurologist, Dr. Shafrir’s
opinion is not persuasive evidence supporting a finding in favor of entitlement for the
reasons discussed in my prior order. (ECF No. 87.) Moreover, respondent filed
competing medical opinions refuting Dr. Shafrir’s opinions regarding diagnosis and
causation.
On June 24, 2025, petitioners filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their claim.
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), “[t]he special master or the court may dismiss a
petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special master
or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(3).” Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioners’ Motion for Decision
Dismissing their Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima
facie case of entitlement to compensation.
III. Conclusion
Petitioners have my sympathy for what they and R.M.H. have endured, and I do
not question their sincerity in bringing this claim. However, this case is now
DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with
this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 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.
3