VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00428
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00428
Petitioner: Michael Veytsel
Filed: 2023-03-28
Decided: 2024-12-02
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 1988-01-13
Condition: autism spectrum disorder
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael Veytsel, proceeding pro se, filed a petition on March 28, 2023, seeking compensation for injuries, including autism spectrum disorder, allegedly caused by a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine administered on January 13, 1988. This was Mr. Veytsel's second petition for the same vaccine administration; his first petition, filed on May 18, 2022, was dismissed for failure to present sufficient evidence. In the first case, Mr. Veytsel was ordered to file medical records from three years prior to vaccination until the present. He stated he had no additional records beyond what he had already filed and was given multiple opportunities to submit them. He also submitted a filing averring expertise in his experience but did not file the requested records or explain his qualifications. The first case was dismissed on December 13, 2022, for insufficient evidence. In the second petition, Mr. Veytsel again provided the same vaccination record and a letter diagnosing him with autism spectrum disorder, Asperger's disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type, on September 19, 2018. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act allows only one petition per vaccine administration. Consequently, Mr. Veytsel was ordered to show cause why his second petition should not be dismissed as impermissibly filed. He did not comply with this order. Instead, he submitted a letter outlining a twelve-step theory about how a "foreign chemical compound" can create an "entrained braking mechanism for the advancement of development," but he did not cite sources, reference the MMR vaccine, or mention his alleged injuries. Special Master Christian J. Moran dismissed the petition on June 14, 2023, as statutorily barred under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2) for being an impermissible duplicate filing. Mr. Veytsel appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which transferred the case back to the Court of Federal Claims on May 28, 2024, for failing to seek review by the Court of Federal Claims first. On August 26, 2024, the Court noted no pending motions and was unclear whether to construe the terminated appeal as a new complaint or a motion for review. The Court ordered Mr. Veytsel to show cause by September 25, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2), also suspecting it lacked jurisdiction. The Court sent this order via certified mail. Mr. Veytsel missed the September 25 deadline. On October 10, 2024, the Court granted leniency and ordered him to respond by October 25, 2024, or the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute and show cause. This order was also sent via certified mail. Mr. Veytsel missed the October 25 deadline. Judge Ryan T. Holte dismissed the matter on December 2, 2024, under RCFC 41(b) and Vaccine Rule 21(c) for failure to prosecute, show cause, and comply with court orders. The public decision does not describe the specific clinical story, expert testimony, or detailed medical findings beyond the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Petitioner counsel was Michael Veytsel (pro se). Respondent counsel was Heather Lynn Pearlman. The Special Master was Christian J. Moran. The Judge was Ryan T. Holte.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Michael Veytsel, age 28, received a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on January 13, 1988. He filed a petition on March 28, 2023, alleging injuries including autism spectrum disorder, which he was diagnosed with on September 19, 2018. This was a second petition for the same vaccine administration, the first having been dismissed for insufficient evidence. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the respondent's position on causation. Mr. Veytsel submitted a letter outlining a theory of "foreign chemical compound" creating an "entrained braking mechanism for the advancement of development" but did not cite sources or link it to the MMR vaccine or his alleged injuries. The petition was dismissed as statutorily barred under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2) for being an impermissible duplicate filing and subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. Special Master Christian J. Moran issued the initial dismissal. Judge Ryan T. Holte issued the final dismissal. Petitioner was pro se. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00428-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-17
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/14/23) regarding 12 DECISION of Special Master, Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made. Modified on 7/18/2023 (ew). Plaintiff served via U.S. mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00428-RTH Document 13 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 3
Reissued for Public Availability Date: July 17, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL VEYTSEL, * No. 23-428V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: June 14, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael Veytsel, pro se, Ridgewood, NJ, for petitioner;
Heather Lynn Pearlman, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DISMISSING PETITION12
Michael Veytsel filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
(Vaccine Act) on March 28, 2023. This was Mr. Veytsel’s second petition; he previously filed a
petition on May 18, 2022, No. 22-544V, which was dismissed for failure to present evidence. In
both petitions, Mr. Veytsel requested compensation for “injuries, including autism spectrum
disorder” allegedly caused by a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine administered to him on January
13, 1988. As the Vaccine Act allows only one petition per vaccine administration, Mr. Veytsel
was ordered to show cause as to why his second petition should not be dismissed as
impermissibly filed. Mr. Veytsel did not comply with the show cause order. Accordingly, Mr.
Veytsel’s petition is DISMISSED as statutorily barred under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2).
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),
the parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted on the website.
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this Decision was initially filed on June 14, 2023, and the parties were afforded 14
days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose any redactions. Accordingly, this Decision is reissued in its
original form for posting on the Court’s website.

Case 1:23-vv-00428-RTH Document 13 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 3
I. Procedural History
The procedural history of Mr. Veytsel’s first case is detailed in the decision dismissing
the case. See Veytsel v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-544V, 2022 WL 17974427 (Fed.
Cl. Dec. 28, 2022). Thus, this history is provided summarily.
Representing himself, Mr. Veytsel first filed a petition on May 18, 2022, seeking
compensation “for injuries, including autism spectrum disorder,” allegedly caused by a measles-
mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine he received on January 13, 1988. No. 22-544V, Pet., at 1. Mr.
Veytsel stated that on September 18, 2018, he was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder,
Asperger’s disorder, and attention hyperactivity disorder. Id. Mr. Veytsel further stated that,
prior to the administration of the vaccine, he “was in good health and suffered no medical
conditions.” Id. Along with his petition, Mr. Veytsel filed two documents: a record showing
that he received the MMR vaccine on January 13, 1988, and a letter from the Christian Health
Counseling Center stating that he was seen by Dr. Aijazali Nanjani on September 19, 2018 and
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Asperger’s disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, combined type. No. 22-544V, CM/ECF 1-2.
.
Mr. Veytsel was ordered to file medical records beginning from three years before his
vaccination until the present day. No. 22-544V, Order, issued May 24, 2022. Mr. Veytsel
contacted chambers to inform the undersigned that he “did not plan to file records beyond what
he ha[d] [already] filed.” See No. 22-544V, Order, issued June 7, 2022. Mr. Veytsel was
ordered twice more to file his medical records and was informed that his failure to do so would
“likely result in the dismissal of his case.” No. 22-544V, Order, issued June 7, 2022; Order,
issued Sept. 7, 2022. Mr. Veytsel again contacted chambers and reiterated he did not have any
additional medical records to file. Upon receipt of this information, the undersigned ordered Mr.
Veytsel to show cause by November 28, 2022 as to why his case should not be dismissed. No.
22-544V, Order, issued Sept. 30, 2022.
On November 14, 2022, Mr. Veytsel submitted a filing averring that he had “expertise in
[his] experience, and expertise in what is self evident.” However, Mr. Veytsel did not file the
requested medical records nor explain how his experience qualifies him to be an expert. The
case was dismissed on December 13, 2022 for insufficient evidence. 2022 WL 17974427.
On March 28, 2023, Mr. Veytsel filed a second petition. This petition was identical to
his first petition, and was accompanied by the same singular vaccination record and letter from
the Christian Health Counseling Center. Mr. Veytsel was ordered to show cause as to why this
case should not be dismissed as impermissibly filed by May 26, 2023. Order, issued April 12,
2023. Mr. Veytsel sent a letter to the court, dated April 12, 2023, entitled, “The mechanism by
which the vaccine caused injury to my person.” CM/ECF 10. Mr. Veytsel presented a
numbered list of twelve steps, apparently outlining a theory by which a “foreign chemical
compound” can create “an entrained braking mechanism for the advancement of development.”
Id. Mr. Veytsel did not cite any sources to support this theory, and did not make reference to the
MMR vaccine nor the specific injuries he alleges. He did not address the question as to why his
duplicate petition should not be dismissed under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2).
2

Case 1:23-vv-00428-RTH Document 13 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 3
II. Analysis
The Vaccine Act explicitly provides that only one petition may be filed for each
administration of a vaccine. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2). Mr. Veytsel’s May 2022 and March
2023 petitions allege injury from the same MMR vaccine administration of January 13, 1988.
The undersigned recognizes that Mr. Veytsel is pro se, and is therefore entitled to a
certain, but limited, amount of flexibility in his filings. See Colbert v. United States, 617 F.
App'x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A pro se litigant's complaint is held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings filed by lawyers”) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007)). Mr.
Veytsel has been provided this flexibility. The insufficiency of the evidence in Mr. Veytsel’s
original case was first noted in the May 24, 2022 order for medical records. Mr. Veytsel was
provided with three opportunities to file additional evidence, but he twice stated that he would
not file any more records. His case was dismissed in a decision explaining why his petition was
deficient. Mr. Veytsel then filed an identical petition. He was ordered to show cause as to why
this case should not be dismissed as impermissibly filed. Order, issued April 12, 2023. Mr.
Veytsel did not file anything to address this issue.
Although Mr. Veytsel’s pro se status entitles him to some flexibility with his pleadings, it
does not change the need for his petition to comply with the requirements of the Vaccine Act.
See Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ling v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-858V, 2019 WL 2606774, at *7 (Fed. Cl. May 21, 2019).
Mr. Veytsel’s petition is DISMISSED as statutorily barred under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
11(b)(2). The Clerk’s Office is instructed to dismiss this case and to enter judgment in
accordance with this decision. Information about filing a motion for review, including the
deadline for any such submission, is available through the Vaccine Rules posted on the website
for the Court of Federal Claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00428-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: JUDGE VACCINE UNREPORTED OPINION AND ORDER: Public Version of 25 Order dismissing this matter under RCFC 41(b) and Vaccine Rule 21(c) for failure to prosecute, show cause, and comply with the Court's orders. Signed by Judge Ryan T. Holte. (LKA) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via First Class mail on 12/3/2024. (sw)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00428-RTH Document 26 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 23-428
(Filed: 2 December 2024)*
***************************************
MICHAEL VEYTSEL *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN *
SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
***************************************
ORDER
On 28 March 2023, pro se petitioner Michael Veytsel filed a petition “request[ing]
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program[] for injuries, including
autism spectrum disorder, resulting from adverse effects of a measles mumps rubella vaccination
received on January 13, 1988.” See Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On 14 June 2023, the Special Master
dismissed the case because petitioner’s “May 2022 and March 2023 petitions allege[d] injury
from the same . . . vaccine administration.” 14 June 2023 Dismissal Order at 2–3, ECF No. 12.
Petitioner also failed to show why this case “should not be dismissed under 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-11(b)(2),” which provides “only one petition may be filed for each administration of a
vaccine.” Id. On 15 February 2024, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 18; Veytsel v. HHS, No. 24-1476 (Fed.
Cir. Feb. 15, 2024). On 28 May 2024, the Federal Circuit terminated petitioner’s appeal and
transferred the case to the undersigned for failing to first “seek review by the Court of Federal
Claims.” 28 May 2024 Order at 2–3, Veytsel v. HHS, No. 24-1476 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2024),
ECF No. 10.
On 26 August 2024, the Court noted there were “no pending motions in this case” after
the transfer, and the Court was “unclear whether to construe petitioner’s [then]-terminated notice
of appeal as a new complaint or as a motion for review of the Special Master’s dismissal.” 26
* This Order was initially filed under seal on 7 November 2024 under Vaccine Rule 18(b) of the Rules of the Court
of Federal Claims (“VRCFC”). Under VRCFC 18(b), each party shall have 14 days to carefully review this decision
and 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.” The Court provided the parties the
opportunity to submit proposed redactions by 21 November 2024. As the parties did not propose redactions or
objections to un-redacting this Order, this Order is now being reissued publicly in its original form.

Case 1:23-vv-00428-RTH Document 26 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2
Aug. 2024 Order at 2, ECF No. 23. The Court therefore ordered petitioner to show cause by 25
September 2024 “as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to 42. U.S.C. §
300aa-11(b)(2).” Id. The Court also “suspect[ed] it lack[ed] jurisdiction over petitioner’s case”
and stayed “all further briefing in this matter by the government pending the Court’s review of
petitioner’s forthcoming response.” Id. The Court sent the 26 August 2024 Order via certified
mail to petitioner’s only address listed on the docket sheet and Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 18.
Petitioner “missed the 25 September 2024 deadline set by the Court’s 26 August 2024 Order.”
10 Oct. 2024 Order at 2, ECF No. 24. As pro se plaintiffs are unassisted by their nature,
however, the Court may sometimes grant a pro se plaintiffs greater lenience in the filing process.
In keeping with this permissive leniency, on 10 October 2024, the Court provided petitioner
another chance to “respond to the Court’s 26 August 2024 Order, on or before 25 October 2024,”
or the Court would have no choice but to dismiss petitioner’s “case for failure to prosecute and
show cause under” Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
(“RCFC”). See id. The Court sent the 10 October Order via certified mail to petitioner’s only
address listed on the docket sheet and Notice of Appeal. See ECF No. 18.
When a party fails to comply with court orders, dismissal is not only appropriate, but also
required to properly administer justice. “While dismissal of a claim is a harsh action, especially
to a pro se litigant, it is justified when a party fails to pursue litigation diligently . . . .” Whiting
v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 13, 17 (2011) (citing Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175,
176–77 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). RCFC 41(b) further provides “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
comply with these rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own motion.” RCFC
41(b).
Moreover, “the court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of the
petitioner to prosecute or comply with . . . any order of . . . the court.” VRCFC 21(c)(1).
“Unless the decision states otherwise, a dismissal under . . . subdivision (c) is with prejudice.”
VRCFC 21(c)(2). Further, a petitioner’s inaction and failure to abide by the Court’s orders risks
dismissal of the case. See, e.g., Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct.
439, 442–43 (1992), aff’d without opin., 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Sapharas v.
Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503, 504–05 (1996).
Petitioner has not submitted or filed any documents with the Court since sending a letter
on 12 April 2023 and filing an appeal with the Federal Circuit on 2 February 2024. Petitioner
has missed both the 25 September 2024 deadline set by the Court’s 26 August 2024 Order and
the 25 October 2024 deadline set by the Court’s 10 October 2024 Order. The Court therefore has
no choice but to DISMISS this matter under RCFC 41(b) and VRCFC 21(c)(1)–(2) for failure to
prosecute, show cause, and comply with the Court’s 26 August and 10 October 2024 Orders.
Accordingly, the Court considers this matter closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Ryan T. Holte
RYAN T. HOLTE
Judge
- 2 -