VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00257
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00257
Petitioner: Paul E. Saliba
Filed: 2022-03-08
Decided: 2026-03-31
Vaccine: tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap)
Vaccination date: 2019-03-18
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 8, 2022, Paul E. Saliba filed a petition alleging that a Tdap vaccination caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome. He later identified four potential vaccination dates, and the parties explored settlement for more than a year before reaching an impasse.

Respondent recommended against compensation after reviewing additional medical records. Mr. Saliba then filed an expert report from Dr. Heller, who proposed molecular mimicry as a mechanism connecting the vaccine to GBS. Respondent challenged that theory through reports from Dr. Merkle and Dr. He. The public decision states that Dr. He challenged many aspects of Dr. Heller's opinion, and that Dr. Heller's response did not supply additional detail beyond describing a conceptual possibility of an external immune trigger causing an autoimmune response.

On March 23, 2026, Mr. Saliba moved for a decision dismissing his petition. Special Master Christian J. Moran construed the request as a motion for dismissal with judgment against petitioner and denied compensation on March 31, 2026. No vaccine-injury award was made.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine, alleged date ultimately tied to March 18, 2019 in curated row/source record, allegedly causing GBS; DISMISSED/DENIED. Petitioner expert Dr. Heller proposed molecular mimicry. Respondent experts Dr. Merkle and Dr. He challenged the opinion; Dr. He disputed multiple aspects and Dr. Heller's response did not add detail beyond conceptual immune-trigger causation. No compensation. SM Christian J. Moran, petition filed March 8, 2022; dismissal March 31, 2026. Attorney: Robin J. Marzella.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00257-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-24
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/31/2026) regarding 102 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00257-UNJ Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PAUL E. SALIBA, * No. 22-0257V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
* Filed: March 31, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robin J. Marzella, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., Harrisburg, PA, for
petitioner;
Emilie Williams, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Petitioner, Paul E. Saliba, filed a petition for compensation on March 8,
2022, alleging that the that a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine caused him to suffer a neurologic condition, Guillain-Barré syndrome
(“GBS”). On March 23, 2026, Mr. Saliba filed a motion for a decision dismissing
his petition.
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), the parties have 14
days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted
on the website.

Case 1:22-vv-00257-UNJ Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
Mr. Saliba filed his petition on March 8, 2022, alleging that the Tdap
vaccine he received on March 18, 2019 caused him to suffer from GBS. He filed
medical records periodically.
Mr. Saliba was directed to identify any treating doctors who linked his Tdap
vaccine to his GBS. Mr. Saliba identified four potential instances. Pet’r’s Status
Rep., filed Oct. 5, 2022.
By December 27, 2022, the parties were exploring settlement. These
discussions continued for more than a year. During an April 9, 2024 status
conference, the parties stated that settlement efforts had reached an impasse. Mr.
Saliba submitted additional medical records on May 9, 2024. Exhibits 13-17.
The Secretary reviewed the material and recommended that compensation be
denied. Resp’t’s Rep., filed May 29, 2024. Because Mr. Saliba was likely to seek
a report from an expert, a set of instructions was issued on May 30, 2024.
The parties submitted reports from their experts. Mr. Saliba supported his
claim with an opinion from Dr. Heller. Exhibit 19, filed Aug. 28, 2024. The
Secretary challenged aspects of Dr. Heller’s opinion through reports from Dr.
Merkle and Dr. He. Exhibits A, filed Oct. 28, 2024; and C, filed Oct. 28, 2024. In
Dr. Heller’s first report, he proposed molecular mimicry as a theory to connect the
vaccines to GBS. Exhibit 19 at 5-7. However, Dr. He challenged many aspects to
Dr. Heller’s opinion. Exhibit C at 6-14. In Dr. Heller’s response, Dr. Heller did
not supply any more details. Instead, Dr. Heller stated his opinion is intended “to
conceptualize how an external immune precipitant could potentially induce an
errant, autoimmune response.” Exhibit 34 at 1 (italics in original).
A Tentative Finding Denying Entitlement / Order to Show Cause issued on
January 22, 2026. The order cited to leading appellate court opinions regarding
molecular mimicry and advised that, when Dr. Heller’s opinions were measured
against these standards, Mr. Saliba did not appear likely to meet his burden of
proof under Althen. The order advised Mr. Saliba to consider whether he wanted
to proceed with litigation. If so, he would have the opportunity to file a brief
arguing that he fulfilled all of the Althen prongs, focusing on why Dr. Heller’s
presentation of molecular mimicry is adequate. Mr. Saliba would not be permitted
to file any additional expert report, as he had already had ample opportunity to
disclose opinions from experts. Alternatively, Mr. Saliba could move to dismiss
2

Case 1:22-vv-00257-UNJ Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 4
his case. Mr. Saliba was given a deadline of March 23, 2026 to respond. On the
day of the deadline, Mr. Saliba moved to dismiss his case.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Mr. Saliba filed medical records and expert reports in support of
his claim. Nevertheless, Mr. Saliba wishes to have his case dismissed and
judgment entered against him. Given Mr. Saliba’s clear intent that a judgment
issue in this case, the undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” To conform to section 12(d)(3), a decision must “include
findings of fact and conclusions of law.” For causation-in-fact cases, the Federal
Circuit has defined elements of a petitioner’s claim. Petitioners bear a burden to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccination brought about their
injury by providing:
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and 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 & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The dispositive prong is the first Althen prong, which concerns the medical
theory. Dr. Heller proposes molecular mimicry. Exhibit 19 at 5-8. To prevail on
a theory of molecular mimicry, a petitioner must “offer reliable and persuasive
medical or scientific evidence of some kind (whether expert testimony or
3

Case 1:22-vv-00257-UNJ Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 4
literature) that suggests the vaccine components could interact with the self
structures as maintained.” Johnson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-
254V, 2018 WL 2051760, at *26 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 23, 2018); see also
Tullio v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-51V, 2019 WL 7580149, at *15
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 19, 2019), mot. for rev. denied, 149 Fed. Cl. 448 (2020)
(finding that the theory of molecular mimicry was unpersuasive even when
sequence homology was identified).
At the appropriate level of scrutiny, Mr. Saliba’s evidence is not persuasive
to establish that this theory is reliable. Dr. He raised several points against Dr.
Heller’s theory, concluding:
In summary, the molecular mimicry theory has been under strong
challenges by three categories of scientific findings. Mere sequence
homologies between microbial pathogens and human proteins will not
cause autoimmune diseases. Host immune responses are tightly
controlled by multi-layers of tolerance mechanisms. In rare occasions,
strong immune activation, primarily infections, can break these layers
of tolerance mechanisms to cause autoimmune diseases such as GBS.
However, there is no evidence to support Tdap vaccine possesses such
a capability.
Exhibit C at 15. Dr. Heller largely did not answer Dr. He’s points, instead stating
that molecular mimicry “is merely a theory, used to conceptualize how an external
immune precipitant could potentially induce an errant, autoimmune response. It is
by no means the entire answer to a complex question.” Exhibit 34 at 2. In all, Mr.
Saliba’s theory of molecular mimicry is too vague to carry his burden under
Althen.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4