VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00301 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00301 Petitioner: Andrew Williamson Filed: 2024-08-13 Decided: 2024-09-25 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-03-06 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Andrew Williamson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on March 6, 2020. The respondent argued that the onset of his GBS occurred four months after vaccination, which is beyond the timeframe specified in the Vaccine Injury Table, and that Williamson failed to establish that the vaccine caused his injury. The court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Subsequently, Williamson filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, acknowledging his inability to prove entitlement to compensation. He understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against him and end his rights in the Vaccine Program. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. In this case, the record lacked evidence of a Table Injury and did not contain sufficient medical expert opinions or other persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. Therefore, the court denied Williamson's claim for compensation and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, entering judgment accordingly. Theory of causation field: Off-Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00301-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-25 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/13/2024) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-00301-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-301V ANDREW WILLIAMSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 13, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner. Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On March 1, 2023, Andrew Williamson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) caused-in-fact by an influenza vaccine administered on March 6, 2020. Petition at 23. On March 7, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report recommending that compensation be denied in this case. ECF No. 23. Respondent argues that onset of Petitioner’s GBS did not occur until four months after vaccination, well beyond the timeframe set forth in the Vaccine Injury table. Id. at 10-11. Respondent also argues that 1 Because this Decision 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 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:23-vv-00301-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/25/24 Page 2 of 2 Petitioner failed to establish his injury was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine. Id. at 11-12. An Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed was issued on May 6, 2024. ECF No. 25. On July 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to dimsmiss his petition. Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision Dismissing his Petition (“Motion”), ECF No. 28. Petitioner acknowledged that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. Petitioner further indicated that he “understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment against him. He has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused. Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 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.