VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00537
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00537
Petitioner: B.M.
Filed: 2023-04-18
Decided: 2025-09-15
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2021-08-19
Condition: infantile spasms and developmental delays
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Christine Maupin filed a petition on April 18, 2023, on behalf of her minor child, B.M., alleging that the DTaP, Hepatitis B, IPV, and rotavirus vaccines administered on August 19, 2021, caused B.M. to suffer from infantile spasms and developmental delays. The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Petitioner's counsel was Jessica Wallace of Siri & Glimstad, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Camille Jordan Webster of the United States Department of Justice. Special Master Christian J. Moran presided over the case. Initially, the petitioner pursued the claim, submitting an expert report from pediatric neurologist and geneticist Dr. Huq. Dr. Huq opined that B.M.'s brain abnormalities made her susceptible to seizures, but that vaccine-induced brain inflammation also played a significant role in her condition. He stated that if brain abnormalities alone were responsible, the spasms would have been more severe and tractable. Dr. Huq acknowledged pre-vaccination seizure-like eye movements but considered them not concerning enough to be discussed with a medical provider and likely normal. The respondent's experts, pediatric neurologist Dr. Kruer and pediatric immunologist Dr. McCusker, countered these opinions. Dr. Kruer questioned Dr. Huq's assessment of pre-vaccination symptoms and argued that B.M.'s brain malformation, a frequent cause of infantile spasms, alone accounted for her condition. He stated there was no evidence of brain inflammation and that the timing of the spasms was not compatible with vaccine-induced immune responses. Dr. McCusker concluded that data did not support epilepsy-causing potential from peripherally released cytokines following vaccination and that evidence suggests endogenous IL1β production following seizures, not vaccination, leads to neuroinflammation. He also noted B.M. was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS), not autoimmune encephalopathy, and found no evidence of autoimmune epilepsy secondary to molecular mimicry. Dr. McCusker stated that large studies do not support an etiological link between vaccination and epilepsy onset, with events like IESS occurring independently of vaccination. Petitioner filed a supplemental report from Dr. Huq, who maintained his opinion, addressing the respondent's experts. However, on April 14, 2025, Ms. Maupin filed a status report indicating a rupture in the attorney-client relationship due to differing opinions on how to proceed. After seeking new counsel and additional time, Ms. Maupin filed a motion to dismiss her petition on July 30, 2025. The Special Master construed this as a motion for involuntary dismissal. The Special Master noted that to prove causation under the Althen prongs, a petitioner must show a medical theory connecting vaccination and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The Special Master found that Ms. Maupin had not met her burden under the second Althen prong, specifically regarding the pre-vaccination eye movements, as Dr. Huq did not adequately support his opinion that they were unrelated to a seizure condition. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof, and no compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Christine Maupin alleged that the DTaP, Hepatitis B, IPV, and rotavirus vaccines administered to her minor child, B.M., on August 19, 2021, caused infantile spasms and developmental delays. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Huq, opined that vaccine-induced brain inflammation played a significant role in B.M.'s condition, in addition to pre-existing brain abnormalities. Respondent's experts, Dr. Kruer and Dr. McCusker, argued that B.M.'s infantile spasms were solely caused by a pre-existing brain malformation and that there was no evidence of vaccine-induced brain inflammation or a causal link. Dr. Kruer stated that B.M.'s brain malformation alone accounted for her infantile spasms and disputed the timing compatibility with vaccine-induced immune responses. Dr. McCusker concluded that data did not support a link between vaccination and epilepsy, noting that IESS occurs independently of vaccination and that neuroinflammation follows seizures, not vaccination. The petitioner ultimately moved to dismiss her claim. Special Master Christian J. Moran dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the second Althen prong by not adequately supporting the opinion that pre-vaccination seizure-like eye movements were unrelated to a seizure condition. The decision was issued on September 15, 2025. Attorneys for petitioner were Jessica Wallace and for respondent was Camille Jordan Webster. The theory of causation was off-Table.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00537-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-15
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/20/2025) regarding 74 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRISTINE MAUPIN, * No. 23-537V
parent of minor child, B.M., *
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: August 20, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for petitioner;
Camille Jordan Webster, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for
respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Petitioner, Christine Maupin, filed a petition for compensation on April 18,
2023. Ms. Maupin alleged that the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”),
hepatitis B (“Hep B”), inactivated polio (“IPV”), and rotavirus vaccines,
administered to her child, B.M., on August 19, 2021, caused B.M. to suffer from
infantile spasms and developmental delays. Am. Pet. at 1. On July 30, 2025, Ms.
Maupin filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition.
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.

Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 2 of 6
I. Procedural History
Ms. Maupin filed her petition on April 18, 2023, alleging that the DTaP, Hep
B, IPV, and rotavirus vaccines administered to her child B.M. on August 19, 2021,
caused B.M. to suffer from infantile spasms and developmental delays. She filed
an amended petition on July 17, 2023 to correct exhibit date ranges and exhibit
titles. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on December 11, 2023, and
deadlines were then set for the Secretary’s Rule 4(c) Report and for petitioner’s
expert report. Order, issued Dec. 15, 2023.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) Report on March 8, 2024, arguing against
compensation. The Secretary noted that none of B.M.’s treating physicians opined
that any of the vaccines had harmed her, and that petitioner had not yet offered a
reputable theory establishing that the vaccines could or did cause the alleged
injury. Resp’t’s Rep. at 10. Additionally, the Secretary argued that the record
showed an onset of symptoms one week prior to the vaccinations. Id.
On September 11, 2024, petitioner filed an expert report from pediatric
neurologist and geneticist, Dr. Huq. Exhibit 13. Dr. Huq opined that B.M.’s
“brain abnormalities made her more susceptible to suffer from seizures but the
vaccine induced brain inflammation also played a significant role in the
pathogenesis of her condition.” Id. at 7. He stated that, if the brain abnormalities
or malformations were solely responsible for B.M.’s infantile seizures, [Dr. Huq]
would have expected her spasms to be more severe and tractable.” Id. Dr. Huq
acknowledged that Ms. Maupin observed “weird eye movements” prior to August
19, 2021, but opined that this “was not concerning enough to be discussed with any
medical provider and was more likely normal,” and “not epileptic and had nothing
to do with B.M.’s infantile spasms that developed post-vaccination.” Id. at 21. He
further stated that the onset of B.M.’s infantile spasms within 24 hours of receiving
the vaccinations occurred within a medically acceptable timeframe. Id. at 22.
In response, the Secretary filed a report from a pediatric neurologist, Dr.
Kruer, and a pediatric immunologist, Dr. McCusker, on December 12, 2024.
Exhibits A and C. Dr. Kruer questioned how Dr. Huq could claim that Ms.
Maupin misinterpreted B.M.’s symptoms prior to her vaccinations, as Dr. Huq was
not present and the events were not recorded on video or EEG. Exhibit A at 2. He
also disputed Dr. Huq’s statement that B.M.’s brain MRI abnormalities were
2

Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 3 of 6
unlikely to be the main cause of her infantile spasms, explaining that brain
malformations like B.M.’s develop before birth and “represent one of the most
frequent causes of infantile spasms.” He opined that “B.M.’s brain malformation
alone accounts for her infantile spasms.” Id. Dr. Kruer stated that Dr. Huq had
provided no evidence to support his opinion that spasms caused solely by brain
abnormalities or malformations would have been “more severe or intractable.” Id.
at 2-3.
Dr. Kruer further argued that there is “no evidence whatsoever that B.M. had
brain inflammation,” and that brain inflammation is only one reason why a child
may have seizures. Exhibit A at 3. Given the lack of evidence of B.M.’s brain
inflammation, he disputed the relevance of the papers reviewed by Dr. Huq. Id.
Dr. Kruer also stated that the timing of B.M.’s spasms--within 24 hours of
receiving the vaccines—is not compatible with the IOM’s report on the adverse
effects of vaccines and the time it takes for an adaptive immune response under a
molecular mimicry theory. Id.
Dr. McCusker reviewed several studies and concluded that the data did “not
support any epilepsy-causing potential of peripherally released IL1β or any of the
other so-called pro-inflammatory, innate, cytokines that may be elevated
peripherally following vaccination.” Exhibit C at 5-6 (emphasis in original). On
the contrary, Dr. McCusker stated that “evidence suggests that endogenous (CNS)
production and activity of IL1β is evident following seizures,” and that there is “no
persuasive evidence presented suggesting that immune responses induced
following vaccination result in CNS trauma leading to seizures.” Id. at 6
(emphasis in original). “These data consistently show that epilepsy develops in the
central nervous system following CNS trauma which may lead to
neuroinflammation.” Id.
Dr. McCusker also noted that B.M. was diagnosed with IESS (infantile
epileptic spasms syndrome), and not autoimmune encephalopathy. Dr. McCusker
stated that there is “no evidence in the clinical record to support [Dr. Huq’s] claim”
that B.M. may have developed autoimmune epilepsy secondary to molecular
mimicry. Exhibit C at 7. Further, Dr. McCusker stated that the incidence of
epilepsy is highest in infancy, and that studies support the hypothesis that
predisposing factors within the child, rather than vaccination, cause neurologic
deterioration. Id. In addition, “data from large studies do not support an
etiological link between vaccination and onset of epilepsy,” but rather,
3

Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 4 of 6
“neurological events such as IESS occur independently of vaccination.” Id. at 9-
10. Dr. McCusker concluded that “no persuasive evidence in the clinical record of
the extant literature support[s] a role of vaccination in the development of [B.M.’s]
infantile spasms and developmental delay.” Id. at 10.
Following this round of reports, Ms. Maupin was ordered to file a
supplemental expert report, or a status report stating that she would not submit any
additional reports, by February 28, 2025. Order, issued Jan. 6, 2025. On February
20, 2025, Ms. Maupin moved for an additional 30 days to file a report, stating that
her expert needed additional time to complete his review and draft the response.
The motion was granted, extending the deadline to March 31, 2025. Order, issued
Feb. 21, 2025.
Ms. Maupin submitted a supplemental report from Dr. Huq on March 31,
2025. Exhibit 138. Dr. Huq responded to both Dr. Kruer and Dr. McCusker,
maintaining his opinion that the August 19, 2021 vaccination “triggered B.M.’s
infantile spasms and contributed to her subsequent neurodevelopmental disorder.”
Id. at 6. He reiterated that B.M.’s eye movements were not sufficiently alarming to
be reported or recorded and opined that Ms. Maupin would have raised the issue
early if she had been concerned. Id. at 2. He also addressed Dr. McCusker’s
argument that inflammation is a consequence rather than a cause of seizures,
stating that it can be both a trigger and a consequence. Id. at 4.
The day after submitting Dr. Huq’s second report, Ms. Maupin filed a status
report stating that she was “currently investigating the need to file an expert report
in immunology in addition to the expert report of Dr. Huq,” and proposed filing a
status report by May 1, 2025, stating whether or not she would file an expert report
from an immunologist. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed April 1, 2025.
Ms. Maupin’s request to add an immunologist was denied without prejudice
to renew. Order, issued April 2, 2025. As Dr. McCusker’s report had been
submitted more than three months prior to Ms. Maupin’s status report, it was
unclear whether Ms. Maupin had acted with diligence to investigate the potential
need for an immunologist. Ms. Maupin was afforded time to file a renewed
motion to add an immunologist, describing her efforts to investigate the need for
an immunologist.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 5 of 6
Ms. Maupin filed a status report on April 14, 2025, advising that the
attorney-client relationship had been ruptured due to differences in opinion on how
to proceed. Ms. Maupin requested additional time to provide an update on how
she would proceed and/or to secure new counsel. Ms. Maupin proceeded to
research and interview potential new counsel. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed May 28,
2025. She again requested and was given additional time to determine how to
proceed. On June 30, 2025, Ms. Maupin advised that she intended to file a motion
to dismiss her petition. The motion to dismiss was filed on July 30, 2025.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Ms. Maupin filed medical records and expert reports in support
of her claim. Nevertheless, Ms. Maupin wishes to have her claim dismissed and
judgment entered against her. Given Ms. Maupin’s clear intent that a judgment
issue in this case, the undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” To conform to section 12(d)(3), a decision must “include
findings of fact and conclusions of law.” For causation-in-fact cases, the Federal
Circuit has defined elements of a petitioner’s claim. Petitioners bear a burden to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccination brought about their
injury by providing:
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was
the reason for the injury; and
(3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
5

Case 1:23-vv-00537-UNJ Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 6 of 6
injury.
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
As the Dr. Kruer noted, B.M. displayed seizure-like activity such as eye
movements prior to her vaccination. Beyond stating that these eye movements
were apparently not concerning enough to be reported or recorded, Dr. Huq does
not provide support for his opinion that the symptoms were merely “random eye
twitches which were not epileptic and have nothing to do with infantile spasms.”
Exhibit 138 at 1. That the pre-vaccination eye movements might have been
different in scope or severity does not mean that they were not symptoms of a
seizure condition. Therefore, Ms. Maupin has not met her burden under the
second Althen prong.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
6