VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00402
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00402
Petitioner: Christophe Glass
Filed: 2022-04-07
Decided: 2025-10-10
Vaccine: measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
Vaccination date: 2019-04-19
Condition: neuropathy / rheumatologic pain with paresthesias and fasciculations
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 7, 2022, Christophe Glass filed a petition alleging that an MMR vaccine administered on April 19, 2019 caused a neurologic or rheumatologic condition involving pain, paresthesias, twitching, and fasciculations. The public decision notes that petitioner later proceeded pro se and changed legal name during the case.

Petitioner described twitching and nerve sensations beginning two to three days after vaccination, but the case never developed into a supported entitlement presentation. The public record described no unifying diagnosis or reliable expert theory, and respondent indicated it would defend against the claim. A nerve biopsy was contemplated, but petitioner stopped communicating with the court and did not prosecute the case to a merits record.

The petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. The decision was originally filed on October 10, 2025 and reissued publicly on December 9, 2025 after the redaction process. No compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
MMR vaccine April 19, 2019 causing alleged neuropathy/rheumatologic pain with paresthesias and fasciculations; adult exact age not stated. DISMISSED. Petitioner reported twitching/nerve sensations 2-3 days post-vaccination but did not establish a unifying diagnosis, reliable expert theory, or prosecution record; respondent intended to defend; nerve biopsy contemplated. Original decision October 10, 2025, public reissue December 9, 2025. No award. Petition filed April 7, 2022.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00402-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-09
Pages: 3
Docket text: ude reissued date and redaction footnote) (sw). Petitioner served via First Class mail on 12/22/2025 (ep). PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/10/2025) regarding 59 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. (Main Document 61 replaced on 12/19/2025 to incl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00402-UNJ Document 61 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Originally Filed: October 10, 2025
Reissued for Public Availability: December 9, 20251
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRISTOPHE GLASS, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-402V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Christophe Glass, Venice, CA, pro-se.
Emily Hanson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION
On April 7, 2022, Christophe Glass2 (“petitioner”) filed a claim in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program (“NVICP”).3 Petition (ECF No. 1); Amended Petition (ECF No.
38). Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”)
vaccine on April 19, 2019, he developed neuropathy, rheumatologic pain with paresthesias and
fasciculations. Id. at ¶ 14. Due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute and insufficient proof, this
case is DISMISSED.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed medical records to accompany his claim. See Petitioner’s (“Pet’r”)
Exhibits (“Exs.”) 1-20 (ECF Nos. 6, 10, 13, 20, 25, 29). The medical records document an array
of symptoms he associated to the MMR vaccination, without a specific, unifying diagnosis. See
e.g. Pet’r Ex. 17 at 24 (“soreness in the wrist area, nerve thing happening sporadically all over
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this decision was initially filed on October 10, 2025, and the parties were afforded
14 days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose any redactions. Accordingly, this decision is reissued in
its original form for posting on the Court’s website.
2 Petitioner filed a motion to re-caption the case after legally changing his name on September 18, 2024. Pet’r Mot.
to Amend (ECF No. 47).
3 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012)
(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of
the Act.

Case 1:22-vv-00402-UNJ Document 61 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3
body.”); Pet’r Ex. 9 at 2 (“had an MMR 5 months ago and 3 days later started having twitching
all over his body.”); Pet’r Ex. 7 at 4 (“This started two days after the [MMR] vaccine, with
muscles twitching started happening in same arm, then started happening all over the
body….Recently hypothesized that it might be related to sugar.”) Petitioner continued to
supplement the record with medical records. See Pet’r Ex. 23 (ECF No. 37).
On July 31, 2024, the case was transferred to my docket, and I issued an initial order on
August 9, 2024, ordering petitioner to file updated medical records. Initial Order (ECF NO. 42).
On October 4, 2024, respondent filed a status report stating that he would like to defend against
this claim and filed the Rule 4(c) Report on November 25, 2024. Respondent (“Resp’t”) Status
Report (“Rept.”); Resp’t Rule 4c Rept. (ECF No. 45). Petitioner was ordered to file an expert
report addressing the issues raised in the Rule 4(c) Report. Scheduling Order (Non-PDF), issued
Nov. 25, 2024.
On January 23, 2025, petitioner filed a status report stating that he was undergoing a
nerve biopsy to make a diagnostic determination, and the biopsy was necessary to retain an
expert to opine on vaccine causation. Pet’r Status Rept. (ECF No. 46). On March 13, 2025,
petitioner filed another status report stating that the biopsy is scheduled for April 15, 2025 and
requested additional time to file the medical records and obtain an expert to opine on vaccine
causation. Pet’r Status Rept. (ECF No. 48). The undersigned granted petitioner’s request for an
extension of time and set a deadline for petitioner to file updated medical records or a status
report on the progress of obtaining such records by May 15, 2025. Scheduling Order (Non-
PDF), issued Mar. 14, 2025.
On May 16, 2025, petitioner filed exhibit 24, which appear to be chiropractic records
from Dr. Gilbert Jaudy. Pet’r Ex. 24. On August 29, 2025, after not filing any other additional
records or an expert report, petitioner’s counsel filed a status report stating that “the
petitioner…will not communicate with the undersigned. Therefore, the undersigned can no
longer prosecute this case on [petitioner’s] behalf.” Pet’r Status Rept. (ECF No. 54). Counsel
requested to withdraw, and the undersigned granted petitioner’s counsel’s request.
The Clerk of the Court served this Scheduling Order on the petitioner by first class mail
on September 3, 2025. The petitioner was ordered to transmit the electronic consent form to the
Clerk of the Court and file a status report explaining how he intends to overcome the lack of a
unifying diagnosis and support his claim that the MMR vaccine caused him to suffer those
various injuries by Friday, October 3, 2025. Scheduling Order (ECF No. 56). The Scheduling
Order also provided that failure to comply with Court orders may result in a dismissal for failure
to prosecute. Id. at 2 (ECF No. 56). Petitioner has not responded to the Scheduling Order or
communicated in any way with the Court as directed.
I. Analysis and Conclusion
A petitioner must establish entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program through
one of two ways. The first way is to establish that she or he suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e. that he
or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and subsequently developed a
corresponding injury within a corresponding period of time. § 300aa-11(c)(1). The second way
2

Case 1:22-vv-00402-UNJ Document 61 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3
is to establish that the vaccine actually caused the onset or significant aggravation of a condition
in the vaccinee. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A). To prove actual causation, petitioner must present: (1) a
medical theory; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect; and (3) a medically acceptable
temporal relationship between the vaccination and the injury. Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs. 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir 2005). In some cases, the special master may have to first
determine which injury is best supported by the evidence presented in the record before applying
the Althen test to determine causation of that injury. Lombardi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
656 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A “vaccine-related injury” is an illness, disability, injury
or condition, that has to be more than just a symptom or manifestation of an unknown injury. Id.
(quoting Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
§ 300aa-11(a).
In the present case, petitioner does not allege a Table injury. Thus, to prevail on
entitlement, petitioner must establish that the MMR vaccine he received is the actual cause of his
alleged injuries. Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based
solely on the petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical
records or by the opinion of a competent physicians. § 300aa-13(a)(1). Additionally, petitioner
has not provided sufficient evidence to support a vaccine-related injury beyond symptoms or
manifestations of an unknown injury. Petitioner has not fulfilled his burden under the Vaccine
Act, and Althen, and therefore it is appropriate to dismiss his claim for insufficient proof.
Further, if a petitioner fails to comply with Court orders to prosecute his claim, the Court
may dismiss the case. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 638 Fed. App’x 1013
(Fed. Cir. 2016); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996). Petitioner
has not responded to the Court order or provided additional evidence to support his claim.
Thus, according to Vaccine Rule 21(b), this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute
and insufficient proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to serve this order upon petitioner by First Class mail to the address below:
Mr. Christophe Glass
3012 Yale Ave.
Venice, CA 90292
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3