VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01169
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01169
Petitioner: A.B.
Filed: 2023-07-27
Decided: 2025-09-24
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2021-02-16
Condition: seizure disorder
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 27, 2023, Joshua Brooks filed a petition on behalf of minor child A.B., alleging that a DTaP vaccination administered on February 16, 2021, caused A.B. to develop seizures.

The case did not reach a merits ruling supported by expert testimony. Respondent argued that the medical record did not prove a vaccine-caused seizure disorder and pointed to a genetic evaluation by Dr. Ness suggesting that A.B.'s condition was likely explained by an NPRL2 mutation. The Court repeatedly gave petitioner time to obtain an expert report or other support. Mr. Brooks reported that he could not secure expert testimony or counsel and moved to proceed without an expert.

On September 24, 2025, Special Master Thomas L. Moran dismissed the petition for insufficient proof. The dismissal was not imposed as a sanction; it reflected the absence of reliable evidence establishing vaccine causation. No compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
DTaP vaccine, February 16, 2021, minor A.B., exact age not stated in the public decision, alleged seizure disorder. DISMISSED. Petitioner Joshua Brooks proceeded pro se and ultimately without an expert. Respondent argued the record did not establish vaccine causation and identified a genetic evaluation by Dr. Ness suggesting A.B.'s injuries were likely explained by an NPRL2 mutation. Special Master Moran dismissed for insufficient proof after petitioner stated he could not obtain expert support. Award: none.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01169-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-16
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/24/2025) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (jjb) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via email on 10/17/2025. (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01169-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/16/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Reissued for Public Availability Date: October 16, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOSHUA BROOKS, *
on behalf of his minor child, A.B., * No. 23-1169V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: September 24, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joshua Brooks, pro se, Atlanta, GA, for petitioner;
Nina Ren, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION12
Mr. Joshua Brooks sought compensation through the Vaccine Program, on behalf of his
minor child, A.B. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34. However, Mr. Brooks has not presented
sufficient evidence to be entitled to compensation. Because Mr. Brooks has not met his burden
of proof, his case is DISMISSED.
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 September 24, 2025, 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-01169-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/16/25 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
On July 27, 2023, Mr. Brooks filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §300a-10 et seq., alleging that his minor child, A.B., developed seizures
from a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine she received on February 16,
2021. See Petition. Mr. Brooks filed medical records, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c),
and submitted a statement of completion on November 13, 2023.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) Report on May 1, 2024. The Secretary argued that Mr.
Brooks was not entitled to compensation because he has not provided medical theory causally
connecting the DTaP vaccine and A.B.’s alleged injuries. Res’t’s Rep. at 15. The Secretary
noted that the medical records also do not contain a medical theory causally connecting A.B.’s
DTaP vaccine and injuries. Id. at 15-16. Further, the Secretary argued that Mr. Brooks had not
provided an expert report nor established a medically appropriate temporal relationship between
the DTaP vaccination and the onset of A.B.’s alleged injuries. The Secretary emphasized that
“as Dr. Ness concluded, A.B.’s genetic evaluation showed that her injuries are ‘likely explained
by [her] NPRL2 mutation.’” Id. at 16 (citing Exhibit 5 at 21-22).
Following the submission of the Secretary’s report, Mr. Brooks was directed to submit
his expert reports by July 31, 2024. Order, issued June 3, 2024. After Mr. Brooks missed this
deadline, he was ordered to file an expert report by September 20, 2024. Order, issued Aug. 8,
2024. On September 9, 2024, Mr. Brooks filed a status report and stated that “To date Petitioner
has requested the expert report to be completed and filed[] but has not had the necessary
cooperation from the parties identified for completion of the report. Petitioner has made
numerous attempts to comply with the order but to no avail.” Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Sep. 9,
2024.
Mr. Brooks’s status report was construed as a motion for an extension of time to submit
an expert report, and Mr. Brooks’s deadline was extended until October 31, 2024 to submit an
expert report. Mr. Brooks submitted a status report and stated he “has requested via email,
phone and web portal for [A.B.’s] expert report to be completed[] but has yet to receive
requested documents from Children’s of Alabama. Petitioner requests intervention from the
court in expediting this request with the appropriate medical professional.” Pet’r’s Status Rep.,
filed Oct. 28, 2025.
A status conference was held on December 9, 2024. Mr. Brooks discussed obstacles in
his ability to retain an expert witness for this matter. The parties discussed several options with
Mr. Brooks regarding potential sources for expert witnesses. The parties also discussed retaining
an attorney, if Mr. Brooks so chose to do. Mr. Brooks was afforded additional time to retain an
expert and submit a report by February 10, 2025. Order, issued Dec. 9, 2024.
Mr. Brooks requested another extension of time. Pet’r’s Mot., filed Jan. 22, 2025. Mr.
Brooks’s motion was granted, and his deadline to submit an expert report was extended to April
14, 2025. Order, issued Jan 23, 2025. After Mr. Brooks missed this deadline again, he was
2

Case 1:23-vv-01169-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/16/25 Page 3 of 4
ordered to submit his expert report by May 30, 2025. Order, issued May 1, 2025. Mr. Brooks
also missed this deadline. Mr. Brooks’s deadline to submit his expert report was extended until
June 24, 2025. Mr. Brooks was warned that he was expected to meet this deadline or an order to
show cause would issue. Order, issued June 10, 2025.
On June 17, 2025, Mr. Brooks moved to proceed with a determination in this matter
without submitting an expert report. Mr. Brooks stated that he was “unable to obtain an expert
report and unable to obtain legal [counsel]. . . . Due to the lack of legal representation after
multiple rejections and many failed attempts it is my belief that there is no further evidence to be
supplied and respectfully request the court to proceed with a determination on this case.” Pet’r’s
Mot., filed June 17, 2025.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (hereinafter “the Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that he suffered a “Table
Injury”— i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table— corresponding to one of his
vaccinations, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See 42
U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(A) and § 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not
uncover any evidence that A.B. suffered a “Table Injury.” Thus, Mr. Brooks is necessarily
pursuing a causation-in-fact claim. As part of a causation-in-fact claim, a petitioner must “show
by preponderant evidence that the vaccination brought about [the] injury by providing: (1) a
medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause
and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of
proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
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. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1). In this case, because the
medical records do not support petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support.
When a petitioner (or plaintiff) fails to comply with Court orders to prosecute their cases,
the Court may dismiss their case. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 638 Fed.
App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503
(1996); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d
819 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (table); Vaccine Rule 21(c); see also Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v.
United States, 889 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal of case for failure to
prosecute for counsel’s failure to submit pre-trial memorandum); Adkins v. United States, 816
F.2d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal of case for failure of party to respond to
discovery requests).
Here, Mr. Brooks was ordered on several occasions to file expert reports to support his
claim but failed to do so. He explicitly stated that “there is no further evidence to be supplied” in
this case and requested to proceed with a decision in this matter. Without an expert report, Mr.
3

Case 1:23-vv-01169-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/16/25 Page 4 of 4
Brooks cannot support his off-Table claim and cannot meet his burden to be entitled to
compensation. See Byrd v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-900V, 2018 WL 6918820, at
*2 (Spec. Mstr. Fed. Cl. Nov. 29, 2018) (“Failure to follow Court orders, as well as failure to file
. . . an expert medical opinion, can result in dismissal of a petitioner's claims.”), mot. for rev.
denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 79 (2019), aff'd in non-precedential opinion, 778 F. App'x 924 (Fed. Cir.
2019). Consequently, Mr. Brooks’s case is dismissed for failure to present evidence, not as a
sanction. See Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 153 Fed. Cl. 642 (2021) (denying
motion for review of a decision for failure to present persuasive evidence).
Accordingly, this case is dismissed for insufficient evidence. The Clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4