VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00957
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00957
Petitioner: Chandra Guzman
Filed: 2025-03-03
Decided: 2025-03-31
Vaccine: pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
Vaccination date: 2019-09-19
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Chandra Guzman filed a petition on March 3, 2025, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ms. Guzman alleged that she developed transverse myelitis as a result of receiving a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on September 19, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on June 14, 2024, recommending denial of compensation. Following a status conference, the Special Master directed the petitioner to file an expert report addressing causation. However, on February 28, 2025, Ms. Guzman filed a motion to dismiss her claim, stating she opted not to proceed. She was advised that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending her rights in the Vaccine Program for this claim. The Special Master found a dismissal with prejudice to be appropriate, as the petitioner had not offered sufficient evidence to support her claim and preferred not to proceed. The petition was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was to be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the petitioner's counsel, respondent's counsel, specific clinical details of the alleged injury, or any expert testimony.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Chandra Guzman alleged that she developed transverse myelitis following a September 19, 2019, vaccination with a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. The respondent recommended denial of compensation. The Special Master directed the petitioner to file an expert report on causation. Petitioner subsequently moved to dismiss her claim, stating she opted not to proceed. The Special Master dismissed the petition with prejudice, noting that the petitioner had not offered sufficient evidence to support her claim and preferred not to proceed. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, name any experts, or detail the mechanism of injury. The outcome was a dismissal with prejudice.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00957-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-31
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/03/2025) regarding 41 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00957-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-957V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CHANDRA GUZMAN, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: March 3, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Lynn C. Schlie, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On August 18, 2022, Chandra Guzman filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that
she developed transverse myelitis as a result of her receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
on September 19, 2019. Amended Petition (ECF No. 31) at 1. On June 14, 2024, Respondent filed
his Rule 4(c) Report recommending denial of compensation in this matter. See Report, dated June
14, 2024 (ECF No. 36). I subsequently held a status conference, and at that time directed Petitioner
to file an expert report addressing prong one causation. See Scheduling Order, dated July 10, 2024.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim. See Motion, dated
Feb. 28, 2025 (ECF No. 40). Petitioner explains that she has opted to not proceed forward with her
claim. Mot. at 2. Petitioner has been advised that a decision dismissing the petition will result in a
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:22-vv-00957-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 2
judgment against her, and that such a judgment will end all her rights in the Vaccine Program with
regard to this specific claim relating to her September 19, 2019 vaccination. Id.
Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), a petitioner may request a decision dismissing a petition,
even after preparation of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. In such a case the decision will result in
a judgment, although the dismissal will be with prejudice (unless otherwise indicated). Rule
21(b)(1) and (2). Here, I find such a decision appropriate. To be entitled to compensation under
the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she 1) suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e.,
an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to his vaccination, or 2) that she
suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See § 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner
has affirmatively represented that she prefers to no longer proceed with his claim, and has not
otherwise offered evidence sufficient to support the claim.
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS the Petition with prejudice. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2