VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00810
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00810
Petitioner: Katherine Nottenburg
Filed: 2022-07-26
Decided: 2023-07-19
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2019-07-31
Condition: injection site reaction and body numbness
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 26, 2022, Katherine Nottenburg filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, alleging she suffered an injection site reaction and body numbness following her measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination on July 31, 2019. Ms. Nottenburg, who represented herself, did not submit any medical records to support her claim. She was ordered to file supporting medical records on four separate occasions, with over nine months provided to comply. Despite these orders and warnings that the case risked involuntary dismissal, Ms. Nottenburg had no further contact with the court after filing her petition. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. This requires demonstrating a medical theory connecting the vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship, supported by preponderant evidence such as medical records and expert opinions. As Ms. Nottenburg failed to provide any evidence and did not prosecute her case, the petition was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation and for failure to prosecute. The clerk of the court was directed to enter judgment accordingly. Special Master Daniel T. Horner issued the decision, which was originally filed on June 1, 2023, and reissued for public availability on July 19, 2023. Petitioner counsel was Katherine Nottenburg, pro se. Respondent counsel was Steven Santayana.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Katherine Nottenburg alleged an injection site reaction and body numbness following her July 31, 2019, MMR vaccination. The petition was filed on July 26, 2022. Petitioner failed to submit any medical records or other evidence to support her claim, despite multiple court orders and ample time to do so. The public decision does not describe a specific theory of causation, medical experts, or a mechanism of injury. The Special Master, Daniel T. Horner, dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case and failure to prosecute, as compensation requires proof of a Table Injury or actual causation, substantiated by evidence such as medical records and expert opinions, which were not provided. The case was dismissed without an award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00810-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/1/2023) regarding 18 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via first class mail on 7/21/2023. (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00810-UNJ Document 20 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-810V
UNPUBLISHED
KATHERINE NOTTENBURG, Special Master Horner
Petitioner, Filed: June 1, 2023
v.
Reissued for Public Availability:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND July 19, 2023
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Katherine Nottenburg, New York, NY, pro se petitioner.
Steven Santayana, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On July 26, 2022, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered a number of
symptoms, including injection site reaction and body numbness, following receipt of her
July 31, 2019, measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner did not file any medical records with her petition and has not filed medical
records at any point since. She was ordered to file medical records supporting her
claim on four separate occasions. (ECF Nos. 11-14.) From the time petitioner was first
ordered to file medical records on August 8, 2022, until her most recent deadline of May
24, 2023, petitioner was allowed over nine months to file her medical records.
However, petitioner has had no contact with the court since she filed her petition.
Orders to Show Cause issued on January 20, 2023, and March 23, 2023, cautioning
petitioner that the claim was at risk of involuntary dismissal if she did not take action.
(ECF Nos. 13-14.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy her
burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1)
a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this Decision was initially filed on June 1, 2023, 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.

Case 1:22-vv-00810-UNJ Document 20 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 2
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 & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Special masters are charged with adjudicating cases in this program while
“endeavoring to make the proceedings expeditious, flexible, and less adversarial, while
at the same time affording each party a full and fair opportunity to present its case and
creating a record sufficient to allow review of the special master’s decision.” Vaccine
Rule 3(b)(2). However, the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the
undersigned from ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated
by medical records or medical opinion. Additionally, Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1) provides
that “[t]he special master or the court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for
failure of the petitioner to prosecute or comply with these rules or any order of the
special master or the court.”
Despite having been provided a full and fair opportunity to present her claim,
petitioner has filed no evidence to support her allegations and has not maintained any
contact with the court. This petition is therefore dismissed for failure to establish a
prima facie case of entitlement to compensation and for failure to prosecute.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2