VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00128
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00128
Petitioner: Joan Steede
Filed: 2022-02-08
Decided: 2023-11-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-25
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Joan Steede filed a petition alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 25, 2019. She also received a Tdap vaccine on the same day, but did not allege a claim related to it. The court noted that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to confirm that Ms. Steede was ever diagnosed with or treated for GBS, nor that her alleged illness was caused by the flu vaccine. Consequently, the court issued an order directing Ms. Steede to show cause why her claim should not be dismissed due to insufficient proof. In response, Ms. Steede moved for a decision dismissing her petition, acknowledging she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. She stated that proceeding further would be unreasonable and a waste of resources, and that she intended to reject the program judgment to file a civil action. The court granted her motion, finding the record lacked sufficient medical records or opinions to establish her alleged GBS illness. Therefore, Ms. Steede's claim was denied and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof, with judgment entered against her.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00128-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-27
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/25/2023) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00128-UNJ Document 34 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0128V
JOAN STEEDE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 25, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Patricia L. Hall, Williams McCarthy, LLC, Rockford, IL, for Petitioner.
Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On February 8, 2022, Joan Steede filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), a
defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine3 on September 25, 2019.
Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 20, 26.
1 Because this Decision 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 Decision 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 (2018).
3 Although Petitioner also received a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine, she has not
alleged a causation-in-fact claim related to either the flu or Tdap vaccines. See Exhibit 6 at 61-62 (vaccine
record).

Case 1:22-vv-00128-UNJ Document 34 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 3
After concluding that the record as it currently stood does not confirm that
Petitioner was ever diagnosed with or treated for GBS, I issued an order directing
Petitioner to show cause why her claim should not be dismissed. Order to Show Cause,
issued Sept. 5, 2023, at 5, ECF No. 31. Specifically, I stated that there was insufficient
evidence to establish Petitioner’s illness meets the criteria for a Table GBS, was caused-
in-fact by the flu vaccine she received, or that she even suffered from GBS as alleged. Id.
On October 25, 2023, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition.4
ECF No. 32. In the motion, Petitioner acknowledged that “she will be unable to prove
that she is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 1) and “to
proceed any further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court,
the [R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 2). Petitioner expressed her
understanding that “a decision by the Special Master dismissing her Petition will result
in a judgment against her . . . [and] will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id.
at ¶ 3. She indicated that she “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment
against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at ¶ 5.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that she
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine, a “non-Table
claim.” See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Additionally, for either a Table or non-Table
claim, a petitioner must establish that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for
more than six months post-vaccination, died from the administration of the vaccine, or
suffered an injury which required an inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.
Section 11(c)(1)(D). Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded
compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either the medical records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1).
In this case, the record does not contain medical records or a medical opinion
sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner suffered from a GBS illness as alleged. For these
reasons, and in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED for
insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.5
4 Although Petitioner filed the motion using the CM/ECF event for a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 21(a), it is clear from the filing that she wishes to receive a Judgement which she can then reject,
preserving any civil action.
5 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.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00128-UNJ Document 34 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3