VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01444
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01444
Petitioner: A.T.
Filed: 2022-10-04
Decided: 2025-09-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-17
Condition: chronic rash, fevers, malaise, arthralgias, arthritis, and chronic migraines
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 4, 2022, James and Valerie Thurston filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, A.T., after A.T. received an influenza vaccination on October 17, 2020. They alleged that the vaccination caused a chronic rash, fevers, malaise, arthralgias, arthritis, and chronic migraines.

The public decision does not set out a detailed clinical timeline. It records that petitioners filed medical records and affidavits, and that respondent later recommended against compensation in a Rule 4(c) report. Because the alleged conditions were not Table injuries for the influenza vaccine, petitioners needed expert proof of causation-in-fact.

After receiving additional time to consult experts, petitioners moved to dismiss the case on September 11, 2025, explaining that they did not wish to proceed further. On September 12, 2025, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen Horner dismissed the petition for insufficient proof. No compensation was awarded. Petitioners were represented by Richard Gage.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 17, 2020, minor A.T., exact age not stated, alleged chronic rash, fevers, malaise, arthralgias/arthritis, and chronic migraines. DISMISSED. After respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation, petitioners James and Valerie Thurston were ordered to file expert support. They later reported that, after consulting experts, they did not wish to proceed. Special Master Horner dismissed for insufficient proof and no Table injury. Attorney Richard Gage.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01444-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-08
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/12/2025) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (cd) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01444-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/08/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1444V
Filed: September 12, 2025
Special Master Horner
JAMES THURSTON and VALERIE
THURSTON, as Parents and next
Friends of A.T., a minor,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioners.
Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On October 4, 2022, petitioners filed a claim on behalf of their minor child, A.T.,
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (2012)
(“Vaccine Act”),2 alleging that A.T. suffered a chronic rash, fever, malaise, arthralgias
and arthritis, and chronic migraines as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
administered on October 17, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)
I. Procedural History
This case was initially assigned to another special master. (ECF Nos. 23-24.)
Between December of 2022 and August of 2023, petitioners filed medical records and
an affidavit in support of their claim. (ECF Nos. 7, 11, 16, 21; Exs. 1-13.) On December
1 Because this document 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 document will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-10, et seq.

Case 1:22-vv-01444-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/08/25 Page 2 of 3
18, 2023, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation.
(ECF No. 28.) The case was reassigned to the undersigned in February of 2024. (ECF
Nos. 30-31.) Thereafter, petitioners filed additional medical records. (ECF Nos. 33, 36,
38; Exs. 14-17.)
On July 10, 2024, the undersigned directed petitioners to file an expert report.
(Non-PDF Scheduling Order, filed July 10, 2024.) On December 5, 2024, petitioners
filed a motion to amend the schedule, requesting that their deadline to file an expert
report be suspended to allow for the filing of updated medical records. (ECF No. 41.)
The undersigned granted that motion (Non-PDF Order, filed Dec. 6, 2024), and
petitioners filed updated medical records in April of 2025 (ECF No. 43; Exs. 18-19).
Thereafter, petitioners were again directed to file an expert report to support their claim.
(Non-PDF Scheduling Order, filed Apr. 15, 2025.)
Ultimately, on September 11, 2025, petitioners filed a motion for a decision
dismissing their petition. (ECF No. 47.) Petitioners maintain their position that the flu
vaccination at issue was a substantial factor in causing A.T.’s alleged injuries. (Id. at 1.)
However, they indicate that after careful review and consultation with an expert, “it
seems unlikely that Petitioners will be able to meet their burden of proof required in the
Vaccine Program.” (Id.) Petitioners further state that they “understand that a decision
dismissing their Petition will result in a judgment against them and will end their rights in
the Vaccine Program.” (Id.)
II. Discussion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners must prove either
(1) that A.T. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that A.T. suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a covered vaccine. See § 300a-13(a)(1)(A); § 300aa-11(c)(1). To
satisfy their burden of proving causation in fact, petitioners must show by preponderant
evidence: “(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 & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Vaccine Act prohibits the undersigned from ruling for petitioners based
solely on their allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§ 300aa-13(a)(1).
No “Table Injury” was alleged in this case, nor was there sufficient evidence in
the record to support such an allegation. Additionally, the record does not contain
preponderant evidence that the alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by the flu
vaccination at issue.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01444-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/08/25 Page 3 of 3
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), “[t]he special master or the court may dismiss
a petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special
master or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-12(d)(3).” Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioners’ Motion for
Decision Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima
facie case of entitlement to compensation.
III. Conclusion
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 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.
3