VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00510
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00510
Petitioner: Willie Lee Williams
Filed: 2022-05-09
Decided: 2023-04-11
Vaccine: influenza alleged but not received; PPSV23 noncovered
Vaccination date: 
Condition: death
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 9, 2022, Bernadette Rogers filed a pro se petition on behalf of her mother, Willie Lee Williams, who died in Florida on February 22, 2022 at age 91. Ms. Rogers alleged that vaccines administered during Ms. Williams's February 2022 hospitalization at Tampa General Hospital contributed to her death. The public record describes Ms. Williams as a mother of six and longtime public-school teacher.

The hospitalization records showed admission on February 2, 2022 for altered mental status possibly related to a urinary tract infection, asymptomatic COVID-19 isolation, chronic atrial flutter, bacteremia, acute kidney disease, and discharge home with hospice on February 15, 2022. The autopsy listed cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure as the cause of death, with dementia as a contributory cause; toxicology detected no harmful substances.

Special Master Christian J. Moran dismissed the vaccine claims on April 11, 2023. He found that Ms. Williams did receive PPSV23, a polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, but that polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines are not covered by the Vaccine Program. He also found that Ms. Rogers had not shown Ms. Williams received the alleged influenza vaccine; supplemental hospital records listed the flu vaccine as deferred and discontinued because of discharge. Chief Judge Matthew H. Solomson later affirmed on review, also explaining that non-vaccine allegations such as medical negligence, organ-harvesting accusations, and requests for property relief were outside the court's Vaccine Act jurisdiction. No injury compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Death case; Willie Lee Williams, age 91, died February 22, 2022 after February 2022 Tampa General Hospital admission. DISMISSED. Petitioner Bernadette Rogers alleged flu and pneumococcal vaccines contributed to death. Records showed PPSV23 polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, which is not VICP-covered, and did not prove flu vaccine administration; hospital records showed flu vaccine deferred/discontinued. Autopsy: cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure with dementia contributory. SM Moran denied recusal and dismissed April 11, 2023; Judge Solomson affirmed on review. No award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00510-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-20
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/11/2023) regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via email on 7/21/2023. (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 6
Reissued for Public Availability Date: July 20, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BERNADETTE ROGERS, as legal *
representative for WILLIE LEE *
WILLIAMS, *
* No. 22-510V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: April 11, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Recusal, polysaccharide
* pneumococcal vaccine, receipt
Respondent. * of vaccination
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bernadette Rogers, pro se, Riverview, FL;
Claudia Gangi, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND
DECISION DENYING ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION12
1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this order and
decision on its website (http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). This posting will
make the order and decision available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule
18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or
other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the
special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this Order and Decision was initially filed on April 11,
2023, and the parties were afforded 14 days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose
any redactions. Accordingly, this Order and Decision is reissued in its original form for posting
on the Court’s website.

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 6
Ms. Rogers alleges that her mother, Ms. Williams, received an influenza
vaccine and a polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine. These vaccines, according to
Ms. Rogers, contributed to the death of Ms. Williams in a hospital at age 91. The
Secretary challenged the allegation that Ms. Williams received the flu vaccine and
otherwise noted that the Vaccine Program does not cover the polysaccharide
pneumococcal vaccine. While these issues were being litigated, Ms. Rogers filed a
motion for recusal.
Ms. Rogers’s motion for recusal is DENIED. She has not established that
the undersigned’s impartiality could be questioned. In addition, her claim is
DISMISSED.
Motion for Recusal
Ms. Rogers accurately notes that before being appointed as a special master,
the undersigned worked for the United States Department of Justice from 2001-06.
Based upon this prior employment, Ms. Rogers contends that the undersigned
cannot be impartial. Pet’r’s Resp., filed Feb. 8, 2023, at 7.
Standards for Adjudication
The statutes governing the recusal of judicial officers are 28 U.S.C. sections
144 and 455. The key case is Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). There,
the United States Supreme Court stated, “judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Id. at 555. The Supreme
Court reasoned,
[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts
introduced or events occurring in the course of the
current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not
constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless
they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that
would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial
remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or
disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties,
or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or
partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an
opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source, and
they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of
2

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 6
favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment
impossible.
Id. (emphasis in original).
After Liteky, judicial officers have analyzed questions of disqualification
and recusal through this lens. See, e.g., Hickman v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl.
645 (2015); Schultz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-539V, 2019 WL
6359139 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 9, 2019).
Analysis
A judicial officer’s past employment in the Department of Justice does not
serve as a basis for recusal in every case in which current attorneys working at the
Department of Justice appear. One example is Allphin v. United States, 758 F.3d
1336, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Allphin stands out because the Federal Circuit,
whose opinions constitute precedent binding on special masters, decided it. Other
examples include In re Hawsawi, 955 F.3d 152, 160 (D.C. Cir. 2020), and McKee
v. United States Dep’t of Just., 253 F.Supp.3d 78, 81-82 (D.D.C. 2017).
The undersigned has no bias against and no prejudice for the party whom
attorneys from the United States Department of Justice represents. The
undersigned will fairly adjudicate Ms. Rogers’s case based upon the evidence.
Entitlement to Compensation
Ms. Rogers alleges either of two vaccines, the flu vaccine or the
polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, harmed Ms. Williams. Pet., filed May 9,
2022, at 1.3 However, Ms. Rogers cannot prevail in either claim.
Pneumonia / Polysaccharide Pneumococcal Vaccine
Ms. Rogers states Ms. Williams “was given PPSV23 a pneumonia vaccine.”
Id. This allegation is accurate. Ms. Rogers presented evidence to show that Ms.
Williams received this vaccine. ECF No. 14-2 at 100. In her response to the order
to show cause, Ms. Rogers stated that there are “two types of pneumococcal
vaccines: PCV13 Conjugate Vaccine … [and] PPSV Polysaccharide Vaccine.”
Pet’r’s Resp., filed Feb. 8, 2023, at 3-4.
3 This page, which is the first page, is marked “A-5” in the lower right corner.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 6
Only pneumococcal conjugate vaccines are covered by the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (hereinafter “the Vaccine
Program”). See National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Addition of
Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 66 Fed. Reg.
28166 (May 22, 2001) (“Through this notice, pneumococcal conjugate vaccines
are now included as covered vaccines under Category XIII of the Table. Because
the CDC only recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccines to the Secretary for
routine administration to children, polysaccharide-type pneumococcal vaccines are
not covered under the VICP or included on the Table.”). Ms. Williams received a
pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, which is expressly excluded from the
Vaccine Program. Id. Ms. Rogers cannot receive compensation on a claim based
on the polysaccharide vaccine through the Vaccine Program, and the claim must be
dismissed. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1529V,
2023 WL 2344297, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 3, 2023) (dismissing petition that involved
polysaccharide vaccine); Branson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-131V,
2017 WL 3429847, at *2 (Fed. Cl. July 11, 2017) (same); Bundy v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 12-769V, 2014 WL 348852, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 8, 2014)
(same)
Flu Vaccine
Respondent challenged whether Ms. Williams had received the flu vaccine,
arguing that it was unclear from the medical records provided. Resp’t’s Status
Rep., filed Nov. 21, 2022 (referencing ECF No. 14-2 at 82, which showed that the
flu vaccine was deferred on February 14, 2022). A status conference was held on
December 1, 2022, during which the parties discussed the issue of establishing that
Ms. Williams received the flu vaccine. Because of the inconsistent information in
the record, the undersigned ordered the Secretary to seek out additional
information from Tampa General Hospital that would clarify whether Ms.
Williams received the flu vaccine. Order, issued Dec. 2, 2022.
On January 25, 2023, the Secretary filed supplemental records from Tampa
General Hospital indicating that Ms. Williams did not receive the flu vaccine in
February 2022. Exhibit A at 3 (noting the order for the flu vaccine was
discontinued on February 15, 2022).
Ms. Rogers was ordered to respond by March 13, 2023 to show cause as to
why her case should not be dismissed, and was encouraged to produce new
evidence showing Ms. Williams received the flu vaccine. Order, issued January
4

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 5 of 6
27, 2023. Ms. Rogers filed a response but did not include any new evidence.
Pet’r’s Resp. to Show Cause Order, filed Feb. 8, 2023.
There is no record affirmatively indicating that Ms. Williams was
administered the flu vaccine. Moreover, the record indicates that the vaccine was
not administered. Exhibit A at 3. Accordingly, the evidence shows that Ms.
Williams did not receive the alleged flu vaccine.
Consequently, Ms. Rogers’ case is dismissed for failure to present evidence
(medical records), not as a sanction. See Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 153 Fed. Cl. 642 (2021) (denying motion for review of a decision for
failure to present persuasive evidence); see also Hennings v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-1336V, 2020 WL 2465730 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 13,
2020) (dismissing case when petitioner did not establish vaccination); Gordon v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-40V, 2019 WL 4165318 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 29, 2019) (crediting medical record that showed a deceased person
declined a flu vaccination and dismissing the case).
As such, Ms. Rogers is unable to show that Ms. Williams “received a
vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(1)(A).
Without this preponderant proof, Ms. Rogers cannot receive compensation
pursuant to a claim that a flu vaccination harmed Ms. Williams.
Conclusion
Cases in the Vaccine Program are necessarily limited to cases in which the
person allegedly harmed by a vaccine received a vaccine listed in the Vaccine
Table. Ms. Rogers has not shown that Ms. Williams qualifies because Ms.
Williams received one vaccine, the polysaccharide-type pneumococcal vaccine,
that is not listed in the Vaccine Table. Ms. Rogers also has not shown that Ms.
Williams received the flu vaccine.
Ms. Rogers has also raised questions about the care her mother received.
Those allegations cannot be adjudicated in the Vaccine Program.
It is evident that Ms. Rogers cared for her mother and Ms. Williams’s
unfortunate death has caused Ms. Rogers anguish. Ms. Rogers deserves sympathy
for the loss of a loved parent. However, she has not shown that the Vaccine
Program can compensate her.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 6 of 6
Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is instructed to dismiss this case and to enter
judgment in accord with this decision unless a motion for review is filed.
Information about filing a motion for review, including the deadline for any such
submission, is available through the Vaccine Rules posted on the website for the
Court of Federal Claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00510-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-01-14
Pages: 11
Docket text: JUDGE VACCINE REPORTED OPINION (PUBLIC VERSION)(Originally filed July 14, 2023) reissuing 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Review, Judge Vaccine Order/Opinion. Signed by Chief Judge Matthew H. Solomson. (si) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via e-mail on 1/15/2026. (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 22-510V
(Filed Under Seal: July 14, 2023)
(Public Filing: January 14, 2026*)
)
BERNADETTE ROGERS, as Legal )
Representative of WILLIE LEE )
WILLIAMS, )
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
)
HUMAN SERVICES,
)
)
Respondent.
)
Bernadette Rogers, Riverview, FL, pro se.
Claudia B. Gangi, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Director, Heather L.
Pearlman, Deputy Director, and Alexis B. Babcock, Assistant Director.
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 22, 2022, Ms. Willie Lee Williams of Florida passed away at the age
of ninety-one. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 2. According to filings in the above-captioned
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”) petition, Ms. Williams had six children
and a long career as a well-regarded public-school teacher. ECF No. 35 at 3. As described
below, Petitioner, Bernadette Rogers, is one of Ms. Williams’s children, and she filed a
pro se petition to the VICP that alleged, amongst other things, that vaccines Tampa
General Hospital gave Ms. Williams contributed to her death. Pet. at 1. Special Master
Moran denied the petition. ECF No. 29 (“Special Master Decision”). Petitioner now asks
the Court to review the special master’s decision. ECF No. 31 (“Mot. Rev.”). Respondent,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has argued this Court should affirm the
special master. ECF No. 33 (“Rev. Resp.”). The Court is sympathetic to Ms. Rogers’s
family as it mourns Ms. Williams. However, for the reasons described below, this Court
denies the Petitioner’s motion for review, ECF No. 31.

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 11
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to hospital documents, Ms. Williams was admitted to Tampa General
Hospital on February 2, 2022, for an “altered mental status” that may have stemmed from
a urinary tract infection. ECF No. 14-2 at 75 (medical records filed by Petitioner).
Ms. Williams tested positive for asymptomatic COVID-19, which caused the hospital to
isolate her through February 13, 2022. Id. The hospital documented other medical issues
facing Ms. Williams. Id. at 71, 75.1 On February 15, 2022, the hospital discharged
Ms. Williams after “Patient’s daughter requested discharge home with hospice services
and hospice admission was arranged.” Id. at 74–75.
On February 22, 2022, Ms. Williams passed away due to cardiovascular disease
and congestive heart failure with dementia as a contributory cause. ECF No. 14-2 at 50–
51 (autopsy report). The toxicology report detected no harmful substances. Id. at 56.
During Ms. Williams’s February 2022 hospitalization, she was administered
several medications. ECF Nos. 12-1 to -5 (individual pages of one hospital report); ECF
No. 14-2 at 99–104 (additional hospital documentation). This included medications
administered orally, intravenously, topically, and as eyedrops. ECF Nos. 12-3 to -5; ECF
No. 14-2 at 103–04. In addition to these, Ms. Williams’s hospital reports refer to two
vaccines: a pneumococcal vaccine and a flu vaccine. ECF Nos. 12-3 to -5; ECF No. 14-2 at
103–04. Ms. Williams received a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine known as
PPSV23. ECF Nos. 12-3 to -5; ECF No. 14-2 at 99–100; see Special Master Decision at 3
(“Ms. Rogers presented evidence to show that Ms. Williams received this vaccine.” (citing
ECF No. 14-2 at 100)).
Even though Ms. Williams’s hospital records mention a particular flu vaccine
(Fluarix), the parties disputed before the special master whether Ms. Williams received
that vaccine. See Pet. at 1 (claiming Ms. Williams received the vaccine); ECF No. 18 at 1
(Respondent contending that “it is unclear whether Willie Lee Williams actually received
the influenza vaccine during her February 2022 hospitalization” (citing ECF No. 14-2 at
82, 99–100, 103–104)). The parties continue to dispute this fact. Mot. Rev. at 1; ECF No.
35 at 2 (Petitioner reasserting this in a recent motion); Rev. Resp. at 14. On one hand, the
flu vaccine appears in a list of Ms. Williams’s medications at the hospital. See ECF No.
* This decision was initially issued under seal on July 14, 2023, in accordance with Rule 18(b) of
the Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, to permit Petitioner time to
propose redactions. Neither party proposed any redactions. Accordingly, this opinion is
reissued, in full, without any redactions.
1 These issues included her chronic atrial flutter, ECF No. 14-2 at 2–13, 75; globicatella bacteremia,
id. at 75; and acute kidney disease, id. A full list appears in the discharge documents. ECF No.
14-2 at 75.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 11
14-2 at 99, 103 (reports from inpatient consults on February 4–5, 2022). On the other hand,
additional hospital documents indicate Ms. Williams specifically did not receive the flu
vaccine. See id. at 82 (hospital discharge instructions showing a flu vaccine with a date
crossed out and replaced with “Deferred”); ECF No. 25-1 at 3–4 (supplemental hospital
records indicating the flu vaccine had “Deferred” status and was “Discontinued” because
of Ms. Williams’s discharge).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 9, 2022, Petitioner initiated her vaccine claim on behalf of her deceased
mother. In her petition, Ms. Rogers claimed that the hospital gave Ms. Williams the two
vaccines described above without Ms. Williams’s consent and without notifying
Ms. Williams’s health surrogate.2 Pet. at 1. Petitioner purported that these vaccines
“contributed to [Ms. Williams’s] death.” Id. Additionally, Ms. Rogers claimed the
medical staff’s “breach of duty of care and negligence due to forcing unnecessary drugs
through the IV was the cause of Ms. Williams[’s] death.” Id. On this basis, Petitioner
sought: (1) damages of $1,000,000 for Ms. Williams’s wrongful death plus medical
expenses; and (2) “the transfer of clear adverse title to the home where Mrs. Williams
resided and died.” Id. at 2.
On June 14, 2022, and July 25, 2022, Petitioner filed medical records. ECF Nos. 12,
14. Pursuant to the special master’s October 6, 2022, scheduling order, ECF No. 16,
Respondent filed a status report on November 21, 2022, ECF No. 18. There, Respondent
called attention to “one potential factual issue that may require further development”:
whether Ms. Williams received the flu vaccine. ECF No. 18 at 1.
During a December 1, 2022, status conference, “the parties discussed the issue of
establishing that Ms. Williams received the flu vaccine.” ECF No. 26 at 2 (order by Special
Master Moran summarizing proceedings to date). The following day, the special master
ordered Respondent to request hospital records about whether Ms. Williams received the
flu vaccine and to file any resulting documents by January 30, 2023. ECF No. 21.
On January 25, 2023, Respondent filed Tampa General records that indicated the
hospital did not administer the flu vaccine to Ms. Williams. ECF No. 26 at 2 (citing ECF
No. 25-1 at 3) (Special Master Moran’s summary of filings). Special Master Moran
consequently issued a show cause order on January 27, 2023: “for Ms. Rogers’s claim to
proceed, she must establish with preponderant evidence that Ms. Williams received the
2 Petitioner refers to one other medication in her petition: “Fluronax to prevent diarrhea or other
digestive issues.” Pet. at 1. However, the record does not support that a medication with that
name was administered to Ms. Williams. See ECF No. 14-2 at 103–05. Furthermore, the VICP
covers vaccine-related injuries; it does not cover medications generally. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
11(a)(1).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 11
flu vaccine in February 2022.” Id. Petitioner responded to the show cause order on
February 8, 2023, providing documents illustrating the historical value of the VICP and
the symptoms of pneumococcal disease. ECF No. 27-1 (“Show Cause Resp.”) at 1, 6.
Petitioner also described vaccine side effects and reiterated assertions about
Ms. Williams’s treatments at Tampa General. Id. at 4–5.
In addition to her claims from the original petition, Petitioner for the first time in
her response to the show cause order claimed the hospital engaged in illegal organ
harvesting and trafficking in its removal of Ms. Williams’s spleen. Show Cause Resp. at
5–6; ECF No. 14-2 at 96 (indicating Ms. Williams had “[u]ndergone splenectomy”).
Petitioner also for the first time requested that Special Master Moran recuse himself from
her petition as, she argued, Special Master Moran’s work for the Department of Justice
early in his career constituted a conflict of interest. Show Cause Resp. at 6–8. Specifically,
Petitioner claimed that there is “some bias and or discrimination, conflict of interest, and
a lack of [i]ndependent review” stemming from the special master’s past employment.
Id. at 6.
After reviewing Petitioner’s show cause response and motion for recusal, Special
Master Moran on April 11, 2023, denied petitioner’s motion for recusal. Special Master
Decision at 2–3 (“A judicial officer’s past employment in the Department of Justice does
not serve as a basis for recusal in every case in which current attorneys working at the
Department of Justice appear. . . . The undersigned will fairly adjudicate Ms. Rogers’s
case based upon the evidence.”).
In that same order, Special Master Moran dismissed Petitioner’s two claims.
Special Master Decision at 3–5. With regard to the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
claim, Special Master Moran noted that this vaccine “is expressly excluded from the
Vaccine Program.” Id. at 4 (citing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:
Addition of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 66 Fed. Reg.
28166 (May 22, 2001)). Because “Ms. Williams received a pneumococcal polysaccharide
vaccine,” the special master concluded that “the claim must be dismissed.” Special
Master Decision at 3–4 (emphasis added) (citing Court of Federal Claims precedents).
Concerning Petitioner’s claim related to a flu vaccine, the special master decided
that Petitioner had “fail[ed] to present evidence” that Ms. Williams received the flu
vaccine in February 2022. Special Master Decision at 4–5. He therefore dismissed this
claim, too. Id. (citing cases).
Following Special Master Moran’s decision, Petitioner filed a motion for review on
April 14, 2023, that argued that additional hospital records would support her flu vaccine
claim and that Special Master Moran reached a biased decision. Mot. Rev. at 1.
Respondent filed its response to Petitioner’s motion on May 15, 2023. Rev. Resp. at 1, 8–
11. On May 26, 2023, Ms. Rogers filed a separate “Petitioner Conscious Motion” that
4

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 11
raised substantive and procedural requests concerning this Court’s review. ECF No. 35
(“Conscious Motion”); see ECF No. 34 (the Court’s order allowing the addition of this
motion to the docket). Amongst other points, Petitioner argued that Special Master
Moran erred in his decision as there are “character issues on the defendant side.”
Conscious Motion at 1–3. However, Petitioner also discussed how “this claim is not about
Mr. Moran[’s] recusal,” but rather “the inability to see through all the lies and bad
characters and have the ability to come to a settlement with impartiality.” Id. at 3.
In addition to restating her claims from her petition and her show cause response,
Petitioner’s final motion, in support of her petition for review, included numerous new
claims. One such claim alleged that Ms. Williams’s employment required annual
vaccinations that led to “lymph edema and hypertension liver and in 2022 kidney failure
Tachycardia to Myocardial infraction.” Conscious Motion at 3. Petitioner also requested
that “defendant and special master or judges or staff” disclose any vaccine or
pharmaceutical stocks and that this Court should order “grand jury” hearings and
subpoenas. Id. at 4.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court possesses jurisdiction, pursuant to the Vaccine Act, to review a special
master’s decision upon the filing of a petition from either party within thirty days of that
decision. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1). On review, the Court may:
(A) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the
special master and sustain the special master’s decision,
(B) set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law of the
special master found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law
and issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law,
or
(C) remand the petition to the special master for further
action in accordance with the court’s direction.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2).
This Court reviews the decision of a special master to determine if it is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Avera v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa–12(e)(2)(B)) (citing Markovich v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 477 F.3d 1353, 1355–
56 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The exception to this is applications of the law, which this court
reviews without deference. See Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632, 635
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1383–84
(Fed. Cir. 2011)). The Court employs a “uniquely deferential” standard of review toward
5

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 11
special masters’ fact-based findings pursuant to the Vaccine Act, and the Court cannot
“second-guess the special master’s fact-intensive conclusions, particularly where the
medical evidence of causation is in dispute.” Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9
F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While a special master’s decision “is entitled to deference,” Morse v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 93 Fed. Cl. 780, 783 (2010), this Court will find that a special master has
abused his discretion if his decision: “(1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful;
(2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings;
or (4) follows from a record that contains no evidence on which the [special master] could
rationally base [his] decision.” Wirtshafter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 155 Fed. Cl.
665, 671 (2021) (quoting Ninestar Tech. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 667 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2012)).3
Ms. Rogers, in addition to raising claims pursuant to the VICP, makes several
claims not related to vaccines at all. These claims include her allegations of criminal
organ harvesting, negligent medical treatment, and administration of medications
without proper consent. This Court’s jurisdiction generally extends well beyond VICP
petitions — to include a wide-variety of money claims against the United States — but
such claims must be filed against in the government in a separate complaint and not in a
vaccine case or in a petition for review. Even if the Court generously reads Petitioner’s
allegations as constituting a pro se complaint,4 the Court has an independent duty to
review claims to ensure the Court has jurisdiction. See Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the
Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Here, as explained further below, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s ancillary claims, even if they had been properly filed.
Generally, “the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is defined by the Tucker
Act, which gives the [C]ourt authority to render judgment on certain monetary claims
against the United States.” RadioShack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2009). In pertinent part, the Tucker Act provides:
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have
jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any
Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department,
3 See also Spahn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 138 Fed. Cl. 252, 257 (2018) (“This Court will find
an abuse of discretion only where the special master’s decision is clearly unreasonable, based
upon an erroneous conclusion of law, rests on erroneous fact finding, or based on a record
without evidence to support the special master’s decision.”).
4 Petitioner is proceeding pro se, and this Court generally holds a pro se plaintiff to “less stringent
standards” with regards to how a plaintiff presents claims. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–
21 (1972) (per curiam); see, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 11
or upon any express or implied contract with the United
States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not
sounding in tort.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
The Tucker Act provides this Court with jurisdiction to decide “actions pursuant
to contracts with the United States, actions to recover illegal exactions of money by the
United States, and actions brought pursuant to money-mandating statutes, regulations,
executive orders, or constitutional provisions.” Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1384
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). The Tucker Act, however, “does not create
a substantive cause of action.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc).
This Court also lacks jurisdiction over criminal claims, and this Court may not
“adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code.” See, e.g., Jones v.
United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that the Court of Federal
Claims “has no jurisdiction over criminal matters generally” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491)); see
also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Furthermore, this Court does not have general authority to issue injunctive relief.
See, e.g., Shelden v. United States, 742 F. App’x 496, 502 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Claims
Court ‘has no power to grant affirmative non-monetary relief unless it is tied and
subordinate to a money judgment.’” (quoting James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573, 580 (Fed. Cir.
1998))); IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 57, 64–65 (2022) (“Outside
of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) actions and Contract Disputes Act (CDA) cases, see 41 U.S.C.
§§ 7101–7109, ‘[t]he Tucker Act does not generally confer jurisdiction for actions seeking
declaratory or injunctive relief.’” (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting
Alvarado Hosp., LLC v. Price, 868 F.3d 983, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2017))).
IV. DISCUSSION
Petitioner challenges Special Master Moran’s decision to (1) deny the motion for
recusal, and (2) dismiss Petitioner’s claims. This Court reviews each of these challenges
in turn, as well as Petitioner’s claims that do not fall within the Vaccine Act.
When denying Petitioner’s recusal request, Special Master Moran concluded that
he would fairly adjudicate Petitioner’s case based upon the evidence and that he held no
bias or prejudice towards Petitioner. Special Master Decision at 3–4. Additionally,
Special Master Moran cited binding and persuasive authority for denying Petitioner’s
request for his recusal. Id. (citing Allphin v. United States, 758 F.3d 1336, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.
2014), In re Hawsawi, 955 F.3d 152, 160 (D.C. Cir. 2020), and McKee v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,
253 F. Supp. 3d 78, 81–82 (D.D.C. 2017)); see Allphin, 758 F.3d at 1343–44 (“Appellants’
7

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 11
subjective beliefs about the judge’s impartiality are irrelevant. The judge’s prior work for
the Department of Justice . . . over seventeen years ago does not raise a reasonable
question as to her impartiality.” (applying 28 U.S.C. § 455(a))). Petitioner’s recusal motion
does not satisfy the applicable standard. See, e.g., Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860–61 (1988) (“Under [28 U.S.C. § 455(a)], therefore, recusal is
required even when a judge lacks actual knowledge of the facts indicating his interest or
bias in the case if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the
judge would have actual knowledge.” (emphasis added) (quoting Health Servs. Acquisition
Corp. v. Liljeberg, 796 F.2d 796, 802 (5th Cir. 1986), aff’d sub. nom. Liljeberg, 486 U.S. 847)).5
Accordingly, Special Master Moran did not err in denying Petitioner’s request for recusal.
The special master similarly did not err in his determinations about both the
pneumococcal vaccine claim and the flu vaccine claim. First, the claim based on the
pneumococcal vaccine is not covered by the Vaccine Program. As Special Master Moran
noted, only pneumococcal conjugate vaccines are covered by the VICP. See Special Master
Decision at 4 (citing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 66 Fed. Reg. at
28166); National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 66 Fed. Reg. at 28166 (“Because
the CDC only recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccines to the Secretary for routine
administration to children, polysaccharide-type pneumococcal vaccines are not covered under
the VICP or included on the [Vaccine Injury] Table.” (emphasis added)).
The source Special Master Moran cited remains in effect. See National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program: Revisions and Additions to the Vaccine Injury Table, 67
Fed. Reg. 48558, 48559–60 (July 25, 2002) (codified at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3) (amending the
Table to include pneumococcal conjugate vaccines); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (the Vaccine Injury
Table, which shows only pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and only associates such
vaccines with two non-fatal injuries). As a result, Special Master Moran’s decision to
deny Petitioner’s entitlement to relief was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or contrary to law.
Second, the record before the special master supports his conclusion that Petitioner
failed to show Ms. Williams had received the flu vaccine. Special Master Moran
5 If Petitioner were correct that Department of Justice experience required Special Master Moran’s
recusal, he would be unable to perform the duties of his office because he would have to recuse
himself from every petition before him. In addition, five of this Court’s active, Senate-confirmed
judges would be unable to hear cases squarely within this Court’s jurisdiction. See Armando O.
Bonilla, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/armando-o-bonilla (last visited
July 3, 2023); Kathryn C. Davis, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/kathryn-
c-davis (last visited July 3, 2023); Richard A. Hertling, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, http://www.uscfc
.uscourts.gov/richard-hertling (last visited July 3, 2023); Molly R. Silfen, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims,
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/molly-r-silfen (last visited July 3, 2023); Matthew H. Solomson,
U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/matthew-h-solomson (last visited July
3, 2023). Justice Department experience is manifestly not disqualifying.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 9 of 11
reasonably concluded that “the evidence shows that Ms. Williams did not receive the
alleged flu vaccine.” Special Master Decision at 5. While consultation notes on February
4 and 5, 2022, listed a flu vaccine amongst Ms. Williams’s medications, see ECF No. 14-2
at 97–103, the February 14, 2022, hospital discharge summary indicates that Ms. Williams
did not receive the flu vaccine, see id. at 82 (showing a flu vaccine with a date crossed out
and replaced with “Deferred”); see also ECF No. 25-1 at 3–4 (hospital records indicating
that the flu vaccine had a status of “Deferred” and that the hospital “Discontinued”
administering the vaccine because of Ms. Williams’s discharge). Special Master Moran
reached a conclusion supported by record evidence. Special Master Decision at 4–5. The
special master’s decision regarding Petitioner’s flu vaccine claim is therefore not arbitrary
or capricious.
In addition to her petition’s vaccine claims, Petitioner raised a claim about annual
employment-required vaccines for the first time in a motion following her petition for
review. Conscious Motion at 3. However, this Court is unable to consider evidence that
was not reviewed as part of the special master’s decision. RCFC app. B, Vaccine R. 8(f)
(“Any fact or argument not raised specifically in the record before the special master will
be considered waived and cannot be raised by either party in proceedings on review of a
special master’s decision.”); see also O’Connell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 63 Fed. Cl.
49, 56 (2004) (“[The Court of Federal Claims’] review is strictly limited to the record that
was considered by the special master.”).6 As a result of Vaccine Rule 8(f)(1), we cannot
review Petitioner’s claim about the cumulative effect employment-required vaccines had
on Ms. Williams.7
6 See also Doe v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 94 Fed. Cl. 597, 621 (2010), aff’d sub nom.
Lombardi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 656 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), Appendix B, Vaccine Rules, Rule 8(f)(1) provide that
‘[a]ny fact or argument not raised specifically in the record before the special master will be
considered waived and cannot be raised by either party in proceedings on review of a special
master’s decision.’” (alteration in original) (quoting RCFC app. B, Vaccine R. 8(f)(1))).
7 Even if this Court could consider vaccine-related claims raised long after the petition and after
a special master’s decision, Petitioner provided no evidence that supports her claim. There is no
documentation of Ms. Williams receiving these past vaccines. The lymph edema, “hypertension
liver,” and kidney failure Petitioner mentions in the context of these annual vaccines are not
themselves Vaccine Injury Table injuries for MMR-like vaccines or seasonal flu vaccines (the types
of vaccines Ms. Williams allegedly received annually). See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; Conscious Motion at
3. Where petitioners seek redress for Non-Table injuries, a petitioner bears the burden to prove
that a vaccine on the Table caused the alleged injuries by a preponderance of evidence. Grant v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1147–48 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (stating that claims beyond
those listed in the Table must “affirmatively demonstrate that the injury or aggravation was
caused by the vaccine” (emphasis omitted)); see also Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418
F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describing the burden a petitioner bears when claiming a Non-
Table injury). Petitioner’s claims are just that: claims — but there is no evidence supporting a
9

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 10 of 11
Petitioner also makes claims that are not related to the Vaccine Program. These
include claims of negligent care, criminal wrongdoing, and unpermitted medication. Pet.
at 1; Show Cause Resp. at 5–6. Even if these claims had been included in a separate
complaint filed with this Court — as opposed to being part of a petition for review of a
vaccine claim decision — this Court still would be unable to grant any relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a). For starters, Petitioner’s various non-vaccine allegations do not involve the
federal government, and this alone bars this Court from granting Petitioner relief for any
of these allegations. See, e.g., Moore v. Pub. Defs. Off., 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) (“When a
plaintiff’s complaint names private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, rather than
federal agencies, this court has no jurisdiction to hear those allegations.” (citing
Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003))).
Putting aside the lack of an identified federal actor, some of Petitioner’s claims are
tort claims. Pet. at 1 (referring to the breach of a duty of care, medical negligence, and
unpermitted medication). This Court plainly lacks jurisdiction over claims “sounding in
tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); see also Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338,
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l)); see also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d
1025, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The short answer is that these are tort claims, over which the
Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction.”). Thus, even if those claims had been
properly filed with this Court, we would dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.
Nor does this Court have jurisdiction to grant Petitioner any relief related to her
allegations of criminal wrongdoing. Petitioner’s filings accuse Tampa General medical
professionals of harvesting and trafficking Ms. Williams’s organs. Show Cause Resp. at
5–6; see also Conscious Motion at 2. These claims are not only fantastical, but also they do
not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; this Court has no
jurisdiction over criminal claims. See Jones, 440 F. App’x at 918; see also Joshua, 17 F.3d at
379. Therefore, the Court would dismiss Petitioner’s claims concerning alleged criminal
acts if they were in a complaint.
Finally, whether in connection to the VICP or Petitioner’s other allegations, the
Court is unable to grant Petitioner the injunctive relief she seeks, even assuming the non-
vaccine claims were properly filed and even if we had jurisdiction to consider them.
Petitioner requests that she be granted “the transfer of clear adverse title to the home
where Mrs. Williams resided and died.” Pet. at 2. As explained above, this Court lacks
the authority to grant such injunctive relief outside of narrow exceptions. See, e.g., IAP
Worldwide Servs., Inc., 160 Fed. Cl. at 64–65.
connection between the vaccines Ms. Williams may have taken over years and the injuries she
suffered.
10

Case 1:22-vv-00510-MHS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 Page 11 of 11
V. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, this Court finds that Special Master Moran’s decision
was not contrary to law, or otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of his discretion.
Thus, this Court AFFIRMS Special Master Moran’s decision. The Court lacks jurisdiction
over the non-vaccine claims even if they had been properly presented pursuant to this
Court’s rules. The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT for the government, dismissing this
case.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew H. Solomson
Matthew H. Solomson
Judge
8 Given that the Court found that the government is entitled to judgment and has addressed
herein the contents of Petitioner’s pending motion, the Court denies Petitioner’s pending motion,
ECF No. 35.
11