VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00355
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00355
Petitioner: David Krube
Filed: 2025-02-28
Decided: 2025-03-31
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-04
Condition: polymyalgia rheumatica
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
David Krube filed a petition on February 28, 2025, alleging that he suffered polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 4, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on September 4, 2024, recommending that compensation was not appropriate. The Chief Special Master informed Mr. Krube that claims alleging PMR as a vaccine injury had uniformly failed and set a deadline for him to submit evidence supporting his claim. However, Mr. Krube subsequently filed a motion to dismiss his own claim, stating he did not wish to proceed. The court advised him that a dismissal would result in a judgment against him, ending his rights in the Vaccine Program for this claim. Finding a dismissal appropriate under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), the Chief Special Master dismissed the petition with prejudice. The case was dismissed because the petitioner chose not to proceed and did not offer sufficient evidence to support his claim, and because PMR claims have not been deemed meritorious by the Program.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00355-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-31
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/28/2025) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00355-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-355V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DAVID KRUBE, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: February 28, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mary E. Holmes, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On March 13, 2023, David Krube filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that he
suffered polymyalgia rheumatica (“PMR”) as a result of his receipt of an influenza vaccine on
November 4, 2020. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1. On September 4, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report recommending that compensation was not appropriate in this matter. See Report, dated
Sept. 4, 2024 (ECF No. 32).
I subsequently held a status conference, and at that time informed the Petitioner that claims
alleging PMR as a vaccine injury had uniformly failed. See Scheduling Order, dated Sept. 16, 2024
(ECF No. 33). Nevertheless, I set a deadline for Petitioner to submit a brief addressing the issue
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
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) [hereinafter “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-00355-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 2
of Althen Prong One, thereby permitting him to substantiate what new scientific or medical
evidence would support the claim.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for a decision dismissing the claim. See Motion, dated
Feb. 24, 2025 (ECF No. 36). Petitioner maintains that he has chosen not to proceed forward with
his claim. Mot. at 2. Petitioner has been advised that a decision dismissing the petition will result
in a judgment against him, and that such a judgment will end all his rights in the Vaccine Program
with regard to this specific claim arising from his November 4, 2020 flu vaccine. Id.
Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), a petitioner may request a decision dismissing a petition,
even after preparation of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Under such circumstances, the decision
will result in a judgment, although the dismissal will be with prejudice (unless otherwise
indicated). Rule 21(b)(1) and (2). Here, I find such a decision appropriate. To be entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she 1) suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to his
vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Petitioner has affirmatively represented that he prefers to no longer
proceed with his claim, has not offered evidence sufficient to support the claim, and alleges a form
of claim that the Program has otherwise not deemed meritorious.
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS the Petition with prejudice. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2