VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00048
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00048
Petitioner: Tamara Cook
Filed: 2023-01-13
Decided: 2025-05-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-02-28
Condition: rash, consistent with urticaria versus bullous pemphigoid
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Tamara Cook filed a petition alleging she developed a rash, consistent with urticaria or bullous pemphigoid, caused by an influenza vaccine received on February 28, 2020. The respondent argued entitlement should be denied, noting that medical providers variously diagnosed her rash as a discoid lupus flare, a varicella-like rash related to COVID-19, or possibly cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and that she had a history of systemic lupus erythematosus and an intermittent photosensitive rash. The respondent also stated that no medical expert report was provided to causally link the flu vaccination to her rash, and none of her treating physicians attributed the rash to the vaccination. The petitioner subsequently indicated she had retained an expert and was given a deadline to file a report. However, the petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss, stating that an investigation demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The respondent did not oppose the motion. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the petition due to insufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00048-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-02
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/19/2025) regarding 34 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Jennifer A. Shah. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00048-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/02/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-48V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
TAMARA COOK,
*
* Special Master Jennifer A. Shah
Petitioner, *
*
v.
*
* Filed: February 19, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES,
*
*
*
Respondent.
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Olins, Mctlaw, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
Eleanor Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
I. Procedural History
On January 13, 2023, Tamara Cook (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging she developed a rash, consistent
with urticaria versus bullous pemphigoid, caused by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
February 28, 2020. Pet. at 1-3, ECF No. 1.
On October 18, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that entitlement should
be denied. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, ECF No. 18. More specifically, Respondent stated that
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 1:23-vv-00048-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/02/25 Page 2 of 3
As a threshold matter, petitioner must first establish by a preponderance of evidence
that she suffered from the conditions for which she seeks compensation. See
Broekelschen v. HHS, 618 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As the Federal Circuit
has made clear, “the statute places the burden on petitioner to make a showing of
at least one defined and recognized injury.” Lombardi v. HHS, 656 F.3d 1343,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming a special master’s decision to dismiss a petition
when the petitioner could not establish that she had any of the three diagnoses
alleged). The Petition alleges that she developed a rash, consistent with urticaria
versus BP as a result of a flu vaccine she received on February 28, 2020. However,
petitioner had a long history of [systemic lupus erythematosus] and an intermittent
photosensitive rash. Ex. 13 at 27; Ex. 14 at 25. Medical providers variously
diagnosed her rash as a discoid lupus flare, or a varicella-like rash related to a
COVID-19 infection. Ex. 4 at 6. Her dermatologist not only raised the possibility
of urticarial BP, but also suggested a possible cutaneous lupus erythematosus
diagnosis. Ex. 4 at 23, 26.
Petitioner has not presented a medical theory causally linking her flu vaccination
to her “rash, consistent with urticaria versus bullous pemphigoid,” and has not
presented a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that her vaccination was
the reason for her injury. To date, petitioner has not provided the report of a medical
expert to support her claim, and none of her treating physicians attributed her rash
to her flu vaccination.
Finally, petitioner has ignored alternative causes of her rash in the record, including
her preexisting SLE and discoid lupus, to establish her prima facie case.
Id. at 7-8.
After Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report was filed, Petitioner indicated she had retained an
expert to review her case. Pet’r’s Status Rep., ECF No. 31. I issued a non-PDF Order setting a
deadline of February 18, 2025, for Petitioner to file an expert report. See non-PDF Scheduling
Order on 12/18/2024.
On February 18, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition, stating:
An investigation of the facts and science supporting their case has demonstrated to
Petitioner that they will be unable to prove that they are 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 their petition will result in a judgment against them. They have been
advised that such a judgment will end all of their rights in the Vaccine Program.
ECF No. 33 at 1. Respondent does not oppose this motion. Id. at 2.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00048-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/02/25 Page 3 of 3
II. Conclusion
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to her vaccination, or (2) that she 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 the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In
this case, as Petitioner acknowledges, 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).
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/ Jennifer A. Shah
Jennifer A. Shah
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