VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02344
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02344
Petitioner: David Moore
Filed: 2021-12-29
Decided: 2023-05-01
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-05-24
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
David Moore filed a petition alleging that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of a Tdap vaccine he received on May 24, 2019. He filed his petition on December 29, 2021. The respondent initially requested additional records and expressed willingness to engage in settlement negotiations. Later, the respondent questioned whether the petitioner had met the severity requirement of showing sequela for more than six months. The court gave the petitioner time to provide objective documentation, but the declarations submitted were deemed insufficient. The petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, stating that he would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The court found that there was insufficient evidence in the record for the petitioner to meet his burden of proof and, in accordance with his motion, dismissed the petition.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02344-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-01
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/3/2023) regarding 31 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (emh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02344-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2344V
Filed: April 3, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
DAVID MOORE,
*
* UNPUBLISHED
Petitioners, *
*
*
v. * Decision on Entitlement; Dismissal of
* Petition; Vaccine Act.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
I. Procedural History
On December 29, 2021, David Moore (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act” or “Program”) alleging that Petitioner suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), as a
result of the tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on May 24, 2019. ECF
No. 1.
Petitioner filed medical records on December 29, 2021. ECF No. 1. On July 21, 2022,
Respondent filed a status report requesting additional records and expressing his willingness to
1 This Decision will 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). This means the Decision will be available to
anyone with access to the internet. As provided in 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. To do so, each party
may, within 14 days, 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, this Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
1

Case 1:21-vv-02344-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 3
engage in informal settlement negotiations. ECF No. 13. On September 27 and 28, 2022,
respectively, Petitioner filed additional medical records and a status report confirming that all
medical records had been filed. ECF Nos. 16, 17.
On October 13, 2022, Respondent filed a status report questioning whether Petitioner had
satisfied the severity requirement by showing that he suffered sequela of his alleged vaccine-
related injury for more than six months after receiving the vaccine. ECF. No. 18. I held a status
conference via telephone on October 19, 2022, during which I gave Petitioner 60 days to file
objective documentation that his symptoms continued after his discharge from physical therapy.
ECF No. 19. On February 7, 2023, Petitioner filed his supplemental declaration and that of his
wife. ECF No. 22. The declarations describe the expenses they have incurred to assist Petitioner
with his ongoing GBS symptoms, including medical and assistive devices for their home and rental
of a slip for their boat. Id.
I held another status conference via telephone on February 9, 2023. I informed Petitioner
that the declarations filed did not constitute the objective evidence necessary to satisfy the severity
requirement. ECF No. 24. Petitioner’s counsel indicated that Petitioner had continued to see his
primary care doctor, but that, despite Petitioner’s requests, the ongoing deficits resulting from his
GBS were not being documented in the medical record. Id. I suggested that Petitioner consider
filing receipts for the medical and assistive devices and boat slip mentioned in the declarations. Id.
On February 16, 2023, Petitioner filed his boat slip lease. ECF No. 25. Petitioner’s counsel
confirmed to my law clerk via email that Petitioner did not intend to file further documentation.
ECF No. 26. I held another status conference via telephone on February 21, 2023, during which I
informed Petitioner that the evidence in the record was not sufficient to substantiate the severity
requirement. Id. I informed Petitioner that his options were (1) to request more time to gather
evidence in support of the severity requirement, or (2) to move to dismiss the case. Id.
On April 3, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing his petition. ECF No.
29. In it, Petitioner states that
[a]n investigation of the facts supporting his case has demonstrated
to Petitioner that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program. In these circumstances, to
proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the
resources of the Court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program.
Id. at 1.
II. Conclusion
To receive compensation under 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 his vaccinations, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner
may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his claims alone. Rather, the petition
2

Case 1:21-vv-02344-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 3
must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert.
Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner
to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and, in accordance with
their motion, must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
As such, IT IS ORDERED THAT,
Petitioner’s petition is hereby DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly
or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
3