VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01565
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01565
Petitioner: Ellen A. Mintzer
Filed: 2022-10-21
Decided: 2025-11-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-08
Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 21, 2022, Ellen A. Mintzer filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 8, 2019 caused Guillain-Barre syndrome. The public decision identifies her as an adult petitioner but does not state her exact age.

Respondent recommended against compensation in a March 26, 2025 Rule 4(c) report, stating that the medical records did not establish GBS. The court ordered petitioner to file an expert report, and after two extensions Ms. Mintzer moved for voluntary dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1).

On November 4, 2025, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen dismissed the petition. He found that the record did not contain a medical record or medical opinion sufficient to show by preponderant evidence that Ms. Mintzer suffered a vaccine-caused injury. No compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine October 8, 2019; alleged GBS. DISMISSED. Respondent's Rule 4(c) report stated the records did not establish GBS; petitioner was ordered to obtain an expert report, received extensions, and then moved for voluntary dismissal. SM Thomas L. Gowen dismissed November 4, 2025 for insufficient source-supported proof of a vaccine-caused injury. No award. Petition filed October 21, 2022. Attorney Ryan K. O'Hara, Bacon Wilson.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01565-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/04/2025) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01565-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: November 4, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELLEN A. MINTZER, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-1565V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ryan K. O’Hara, Bacon Wilson, Northhampton, MA, for petitioner.
Benjamin R. Eisenberg, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On October 21, 2022, Ellen A. Mintzer (“petitioner”) filed a claim in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result
of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 8, 2019, she developed Guillain-Barré
syndrome (“GBS”). Id. at Preamble.
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on March 26, 2025, recommending against
compensation, stating that the medical records do not establish that petitioner suffered from
GBS. Respondent’s Report at 10 (“Resp’t Rept.”) (ECF No. 25). Afterwards, the undersigned
ordered petitioner to file an expert report addressing the issues raised in the Respondent’s report.
See Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28).
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The Court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion
is posted on the Court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). An objecting party must provide the Court with a proposed
redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will
be posted on the Court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012)
(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of
the Act.

Case 1:22-vv-01565-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 2
After requesting two extensions of time to file an expert report, petitioner filed a motion
for a voluntary dismiss her claim.3 Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 32). In her motion, petitioner
requests the Court to dismiss her petition in this matter pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1). Id.
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving
either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioner is alleging a Table-GBS, however, an
examination of the record does not contain sufficient evidence that petitioner suffered a Table
Injury. Nor did petitioner file a medical expert’s opinion or other evidence to establish by
preponderant evidence that she suffered the injury alleged.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on the
petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, a petition must be supported by either the medical records or
by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain medical records
or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that petitioner was injured by a vaccine.
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b) and Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act, this
case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Although petitioner’s motion was filed as a “Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss pursuant to Rule 21(a),” it appears this
was done in error because petitioner did not include a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
appeared in the action, and the motion came after serve of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report. In addition, in her motion,
petitioner requested the Court dismiss her petition pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b).
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing
the right to seek review.
2