VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00740
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00740
Petitioner: S.B.
Filed: 2022-07-05
Decided: 2025-03-06
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2019-07-19
Condition: nephrotic syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristin Burger, parent of S.B., a minor, filed a petition on July 5, 2022, alleging that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine administered to S.B. on July 19, 2019, caused him to develop nephrotic syndrome by August 5, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, contested entitlement, arguing that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the vaccine and the alleged injury under the Althen prongs. The petitioner initially submitted medical records and affidavits. On July 20, 2023, the petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Jan Kielstein, a German board-certified nephrologist, who opined that the MMR vaccine caused S.B.'s nephrotic syndrome, suggesting mechanisms including systemic T cell dysfunction leading to a glomerular permeability factor. Dr. Kielstein cited over 15 articles regarding MMR vaccines. The respondent filed an expert report from Dr. Lawrence Copelovitch on November 2, 2023. The petitioner filed a rebuttal expert report from Dr. Kielstein on January 4, 2024. On June 6, 2024, the Special Master issued a tentative finding denying entitlement, noting the lack of a proposed theory on how the MMR vaccine might have triggered de novo nephrotic syndrome and the unknown underlying cause of minimal change nephrotic syndrome. On October 23, 2024, the petitioner submitted an expert report from Dr. S. Sohail Ahmed, a rheumatologist, who opined that molecular mimicry was the most likely mechanism, triggering an autoimmune disease of nephrotic syndrome. The respondent submitted an expert report from Dr. Thomas Forsthuber on January 27, 2025. On January 30, 2025, the Special Master issued a second tentative finding denying entitlement. On March 6, 2025, the petitioner moved for a dismissal of her petition. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice due to insufficient proof. The decision was issued by Special Master Christian J. Moran on March 6, 2025. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received by S.B. The attorneys involved were Edward Kraus for the petitioner and Kimberly Shubert Davey for the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kristin Burger alleged that the MMR vaccine administered on July 19, 2019, caused S.B. to develop nephrotic syndrome by August 5, 2019. The theory of causation was "Off-Table." Petitioner submitted expert reports from Dr. Jan Kielstein and Dr. S. Sohail Ahmed. Dr. Kielstein opined that the MMR vaccine led to nephrotic syndrome through mechanisms including systemic T cell dysfunction and production of a glomerular permeability factor, citing numerous articles. Dr. Ahmed opined that molecular mimicry was the most likely mechanism, triggering an autoimmune disease. Respondent submitted expert reports from Dr. Lawrence Copelovitch and Dr. Thomas Forsthuber. The Special Master, Christian J. Moran, issued tentative findings denying entitlement, noting the petitioner had not presented a sufficient medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury, nor a logical sequence of cause and effect, nor a proximate temporal relationship as required by Althen v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs. On March 6, 2025, the petitioner moved for dismissal, which was granted, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice for insufficient proof. Attorneys for the petitioner were Edward Kraus and for the respondent was Kimberly Shubert Davey.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00740-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-31
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/07/2025) regarding 64 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (jjb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00740-UNJ Document 65 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 4
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KRISTIN BURGER, parent of S.B., *
a minor, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-740V
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: March 7, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for petitioner;
Kimberly Shubert Davey, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Kristin Burger (“petitioner”) alleged that a measles, mumps, and rubella
(“MMR”) vaccine that her child, S.B. received on July 19, 2019 caused him to
suffer from nephrotic syndrome. On March 6, 2025, petitioner moved for a
decision dismissing her 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-00740-UNJ Document 65 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed a petition for compensation on July 5, 2022, alleging that the
MMR vaccine that S.B. received on July 19, 2019 caused him to suffer from
nephrotic syndrome by August 5, 2019. Pet. at 1-4. She filed medical records and
affidavits over the next few months.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) report on January 27, 2023, contesting
entitlement. The Secretary argued that petitioner had not provided preponderant
evidence satisfying any of the Althen prongs between S.B.’s condition and the
MMR vaccine. Resp’t’s Rep. at 10-11. Further, the Secretary noted that petitioner
had not submitted an expert report in support of her claim, and that none of S.B.’s
treating doctors opined that the vaccines caused his condition. Id. at 11.
On July 20, 2023, petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Jan Kielstein, a
German board-certified nephrologist. Exhibit 14. Dr. Kielstein opined that the
MMR vaccine that S.B. received led him to develop nephrotic syndrome. Id. at 13.
Dr. Kielstein further opined regarding onset of symptoms and renal disease in
relation to vaccination. Id. at 14-15. Dr. Kielstein reported that the underlying
cause of nephrotic syndrome remains elusive but suggested that systemic T cell
dysfunction results in the production of a glomerular permeability factor. Id. at 13.
Dr. Kielstein cited more than 15 articles regarding MMR vaccines. Id. at 19-20.
On November 2, 2023, respondent filed his expert report from Dr. Lawrence
Copelovitch. Exhibit A.
On January 4, 2024, petitioner filed a rebuttal expert report from Dr.
Kielstein. Exhibit 34. On February 5, 2024, respondent submitted a status report
indicating that he did not intend to file a supplemental responsive expert report.
On June 6, 2024, the undersigned issued a tentative finding denying entitlement
because petitioner had not presented a theory discussing how the MMR vaccine
might have triggered the development of de novo nephrotic syndrome and that the
underlying cause of minimal change nephrotic syndrome remains unknown.
On October 23, 2024, petitioner submitted an expert report by Dr. S. Sohail
Ahmed, a rheumatologist. Exhibit 41. Dr. Ahmed opined that the mechanism
most likely to explain the development of nephrotic syndrome in S.B. after
receiving the MMR vaccine is molecular mimicry triggering the autoimmune
disease of nephrotic syndrome. Id. at 12. On January 27, 2025, respondent
2

Case 1:22-vv-00740-UNJ Document 65 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 4
submitted an expert report from Dr. Thomas Forsthuber. Exhibit C. On January
30, 2025, the undersigned issued a second tentative finding denying entitlement.
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, petitioner filed medical records, affidavits, and expert reports.
Nonetheless, petitioner wishes to have her claim dismissed and judgment entered
against her. Petitioner filed her dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2).
Pet’rs’ Mot., filed Mar. 6, 2025 at 1.
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. Petitioner bears a burden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the vaccination brought about S.B.’s 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).
Petitioner did not propose a medical theory casually connecting the
vaccination with the injury with preponderant evidence. Petitioner did not provide
sufficient, preponderant evidence demonstrating a logical sequence of cause and
effect that the MMR vaccine was the reason for S.B.’s injuries. Petitioner has
therefore not met her burden under Althen.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00740-UNJ Document 65 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 4
Thus, the Motion for Decision is GRANTED and 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