VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01877
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01877
Petitioner: Denise Heinle, on behalf of the ESTATE OF VIRGIL HEINLE
Filed: 2022-12-20
Decided: 2024-03-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-11
Condition: acute hypoxic respiratory failure caused by acute interstitial pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Denise Heinle, on behalf of the estate of Virgil Heinle, filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine received on November 11, 2020, caused his death on December 26, 2020, from acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to acute interstitial pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis. The respondent argued that the record failed to establish a causal connection between the vaccination and the decedent's injuries and death, noting the absence of a medical expert report to support the claim. The petitioner initially requested additional time to obtain an expert report but subsequently filed a motion to dismiss her petition, stating she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the petition and ordering that judgment be entered against the petitioner. The petitioner was informed of her right to file a civil action within 90 days.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01877-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-04
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/23/2024) regarding 30 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01877-UNJ Document 35 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1877V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DENISE HEINLE, on behalf of the ESTATE *
*
OF VIRGIL HEINLE,
* Special Master Katherine E. Oler
*
Petitioner, *
*
v.
*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Filed: January 23, 2024
*
HUMAN SERVICES,
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Matthew Devoti, Casey, Devoti & Brockland, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner
Mary Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
I. Procedural History
On December 20, 2022, Denise Heinle (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 on behalf of the estate of Virgil
Heinle, deceased, alleging he suffered symptoms including shortness of breath, fatigue, fever, and
cough from the influenza vaccine he received on November 11, 2020, which ultimately led to his
death. Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. Decedent Heinle died on December 26, 2020 from acute hypoxic
respiratory failure caused by acute interstitial pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis. Id. at 4.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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), 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 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) (“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-01877-UNJ Document 35 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 3
On October 18, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that entitlement should
be denied. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, ECF No. 27. More specifically, Respondent stated that:
In this case, the record fails to establish a more likely than not causal connection
between the decedent’s November 11, 2020 flu vaccination and the onset of his
alleged injuries and/or death. Petitioner has not provided a medical expert report to
support her claim, and the medical records alone do not establish a prima facie case.
The affidavit submitted from Dr. Brody likewise does not provide a reputable
scientific theory establishing petitioner’s burden under Althen. 418 F.3d at 1278;
Boatmon, 941 F.3d at 1360; Ex. 4.1 at 8. Thus, based on the current record,
petitioner cannot meet her burden of proving entitlement to compensation.
Absent a persuasive medical or scientific theory establishing that the vaccines at
issue can cause the decedent’s alleged injuries, any suggestion that the vaccines did
cause them is mere speculation. On the existing record, therefore, petitioner has
failed to establish by preponderant evidence that the decedent’s alleged injury was
caused by his November 11, 2020 flu vaccination. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1).
Id. at 5-6.
After Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, Petitioner indicated she wished to file an expert
report and requested 90 days to file the report. ECF No. 28. I issued a non-PDF Order setting a
deadline of February 15, 2024 for Petitioner’s expert report.
On January 23, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion to dismiss her petition stating:
An investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated to
Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in
the Vaccine Program. In these circumstances, to proceed further would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the
Vaccine Program. Petitioner understands that a decision by the Special Master
dismissing her Petition will result in a judgment against her. She has been advised
that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.
ECF No. 29 at 1.
II. Conclusion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine 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 his vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not
receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1).
In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden
of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and, in accordance with her motion, must be
dismissed. § 11(c)(1)(A).
2

Case 1:22-vv-01877-UNJ Document 35 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 3
As such, IT IS ORDERED THAT,
Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition is GRANTED and the petition is
hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 3
If Petitioner wishes to preserve her right to file a civil action in this case, she must file an
election in writing with the Clerk of Court indicating her intent to file a civil action for damages
within 90 days after entry of judgment. See Vaccine Rule 12(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
3