VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00084
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00084
Petitioner: Peter Evan Kenseth
Filed: 2022-01-27
Decided: 2026-03-05
Vaccine: tetanus-diphtheria (Td)
Vaccination date: 
Condition: brachial neuritis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 27, 2022, Peter Kenseth filed a petition alleging that a tetanus-diphtheria vaccination caused brachial neuritis. The public dismissal decision does not state the exact vaccination date in the excerpted allegations.

Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report opposing compensation. The case turned on severity rather than a full causation analysis: petitioner had not shown that he suffered residual effects or complications of the alleged injury for more than six months.

On March 5, 2026, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the claim. No vaccine-injury compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Td vaccine, date not stated in public dismissal text available for this pass, allegedly causing brachial neuritis; DISMISSED/DENIED. Respondent opposed compensation. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran dismissed because petitioner had not shown residual effects/complications for more than six months. Petition filed January 27, 2022; decision March 5, 2026. No award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00084-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-09
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/05/2026) regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00084-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-84V
PETER EVAN KENSETH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 5, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Christopher John Maley, Maley and Maley, PLLC, Burlington, VT, for Petitioner.
Crystal Fialkowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1
On January 27, 2022, Peter Kenseth filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered from brachial neuritis (“BN”) as a result
of a tetanus-diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine he was administered. Petition at 1.
On November 30, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”) opposing
compensation. ECF 22. He argued in it that Petitioner had not suffered the residual effects
or complications of his alleged injury for more than six months. Id. at 1. Petitioner initially
treated for approximately three months, followed by a year-long gap in treatment from
February 2022 to March 2023. Id. at 4.
1 Because this unpublished ruling 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 ruling 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:22-vv-00084-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3
Respondent also argued that Petitioner failed to establish a Table claim because
“[P]etitioner’s pain was not within the Table timeframe,” “the EMG/NCS results in
[P]etitioner’s case are not consistent with BN,” and Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy
explains his symptoms. Id. at 9-11. Lastly, Respondent argued that Petitioner has not
shown actual causation. Id. at 11.
A telephonic status conference was held in the matter on February 25, 2025, to
discuss next steps. Petitioner’s counsel stated there may be some ongoing symptoms,
but he lacked the relevant records at the time. Following the call, I directed Petitioner to
respond to a show cause order by April 18, 2025, why this claim should not be dismissed.
ECF No. 28. I noted in the Order that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to establish
six months of sequelae, or to establish certain Table elements. Id. at 2-3. I also noted that
failure to respond to the Order would risk dismissal of Petitioner’s claim. Id. at 3.
Petitioner never subsequently responded – a period of more than ten months. It is
a petitioner's obligation to follow and respond to orders issued by a special master in a
case or risk the claim's dismissal. Padmanabhan v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 638
Fed. App'x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tsekouras v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct.
439 (1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam), (“[c]ontrolling precedent
considers dismissal appropriate when failure to act is deemed willful, when it is in violation
of court orders, when it is repeated, and when clear warning is given that the sanction will
be imposed”); Sapharas v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996) (“[n]ot
only did petitioner fail to meet the court's .... deadline, but he also ignored the chief special
master's ‘warning’ order, clearly placing petitioner on notice that failure to respond to the
court's order ..., would result in dismissal of the claim.”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b)
(“[t]he special master or the court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of
the petitioner to prosecute or comply with these rules or any order of the special master
or the court.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in my Order to Show Cause that failure to follow
orders issued in this matter could result in dismissal of the claim. Because Petitioner has
not provided a response, justification, or an explanation, and because the existing record
does not support six months of sequelae or establish a Table claim, dismissal is now
appropriate.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 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.3
3 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

Case 1:22-vv-00084-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3