VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00413
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00413
Petitioner: Leslie Sager
Filed: 2023-03-24
Decided: 2025-05-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-08-28
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Leslie Sager filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that an influenza vaccine received on August 28, 2020, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The petition was filed on March 24, 2023. After investigating the facts and science, Ms. Sager concluded that she was unlikely to prove her entitlement to compensation. She filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, stating that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the court, the respondent, and the program. Ms. Sager understood that this would result in a judgment against her, and she elected to reject judgment to preserve her right to file a civil action in the future. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not object to the dismissal, while reserving the right to question the good faith and reasonable basis of the claim and to oppose any future application for fees and costs. The court noted that the record did not contain evidence of a Table injury or persuasive evidence that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Sager's alleged injury. Furthermore, the medical records were insufficient to prove her claim, and no supportive expert opinion was filed. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00413-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/1/2025) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00413-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/27/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: May 1, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LESLIE SAGER, *
* Special Master Young
Petitioner, *
v. * No. 23-413V
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessi Carin Huff, Mctlaw, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On March 24, 2023, Leslie Sager (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that the administration
of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on August 28, 2020, caused her to suffer Guillain-
Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Id.
On January 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition.
ECF No. 45. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science
supporting [her] case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that it is unlikely that she will be able to
prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. She continued, “to
proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. Petitioner acknowledged judgment will result
against her and she intends to elect to reject judgment to protect her rights to file a civil action in
the future. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner understood she may file for attorneys’ fees and costs once her
case is dismissed and judgment is entered. Id. at 1. Respondent filed a response on January 15,
1Because 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 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or “the Program”). Hereafter, individual section references
will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:23-vv-00413-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/27/25 Page 2 of 2
2025. ECF No. 46. Respondent expressly reserved the right to question good faith and
reasonable basis of Petitioner’s claim and to oppose, if appropriate, Petitioner’s application for
fees and costs. Id. at 1. Respondent otherwise had no objection to Petitioner’s motion for a
decision dismissing her petition. Id.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner
suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that
Petitioner’s alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s
claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this
case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Herbrina D. S. Young
Herbrina D. S. Young
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2