VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01574
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01574
Petitioner: Cynthia Rains
Filed: 2023-09-13
Decided: 2025-04-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-14
Condition: Mast Cell Activation Syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Cynthia Rains filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on September 14, 2020, caused her to develop Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). The Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended denial, arguing that Ms. Rains was never formally diagnosed with MCAS, her testing was negative, and the medical records primarily reflected her self-reported history. Furthermore, the Secretary contended that Ms. Rains had not presented a credible scientific or medical theory to link the flu vaccine to MCAS. During the proceedings, Ms. Rains' counsel consulted an expert who declined to provide a report, disagreeing with the MCAS diagnosis. Ms. Rains was given time to determine how to proceed, but she failed to file a response to her counsel's motion to withdraw, an expert report, or a motion for an extension of time. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table injury or causation-in-fact, supported by medical records or a physician's opinion. As Ms. Rains did not submit an expert report by the deadline and had not otherwise met her burden of proof, her case was dismissed for insufficient evidence. The dismissal was not a sanction but a result of the failure to present persuasive evidence.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01574-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-09
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/14/2025) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01574-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/09/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CYNTHIA RAINS, * No. 23-1574V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: March 14, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
Sean Franks Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for petitioner;
Ryan Pohlman Miller, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Petitioner, Cynthia Rains, sought compensation through the Vaccine Program. 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-10 through 34. Ms. Rains, however, has not presented sufficient evidence to be entitled
to compensation. Because Ms. Rains has not met her burden of proof, her case is DISMISSED.
Procedural History
Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 14, 2020,
caused her to suffer from Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (“MCAS”). Pet. filed Sept. 13, 2023.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) Report on October 31, 2024, recommending that
compensation be denied. The Secretary argued that Ms. Rains was never affirmatively
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.
1

Case 1:23-vv-01574-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/09/25 Page 2 of 3
diagnosed with MCAS; her MCAS testing was negative; and that most of the discussion in the
medical records about her MCAS came from her self-reported history. Resp’t’s Rep. at 14.
Futher, the Secretary argued that Ms. Rains had not offered a reputable scientific or medical
theory to establish that the flu vaccine can cause MCAS, or that it did so in this case. Id.
A status conference was held on November 19, 2024. Petitioner’s counsel advised that
he had consulted with an expert, who declined to provide a report because he disagreed with the
diagnosis of MCAS. Petitioner was given time to determine how she wished to proceed. Order,
issued Nov. 20, 2024.
On December 6, 2024, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. An
order issued on December 17, 2024, directing counsel to file proof that he had served both the
December 17 order and the motion to withdraw on Ms. Rains via certified mail with return
receipt. Ms. Rains was given until February 7, 2025 to file a response to the motion. The
deadline for an expert report remained February 21, 2025.
Counsel filed an affidavit from his chief paralegal on January 2, 2025 with the certified
mail and return receipt information for service of the December 6, 2024 motion and the
December 17, 2024 order. To date, Ms. Rains has not filed a response to the motion, an expert
report, or a motion for an extension of time. Counsel submitted a status report reiterating that he
did not find a supportive expert and repeating his request to withdraw. The case is ripe for
adjudication.
Discussion
To receive compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (hereinafter “the Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that she suffered a “Table
Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to one of her
vaccinations, or 2) that she 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 petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Thus, petitioner 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.
Petitioner did not submit an expert report by the deadline.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01574-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 3
Counsel for Ms. Rains has done what is possible to advance the case, and additional
assistance from another experienced attorney is unlikely to change the result. Proceeding pro se
is not likely to benefit Ms. Rains and would cause scarce resources to be allocated towards a
claim not likely to succeed. Additionally, Ms. Rains did indicate that she intended to continue
her case by responding to counsel’s motion to withdraw, nor did she submit an expert report by
the deadline. 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).
In sum, Ms. Rains has not responded to recent orders, and she has not met her burden of
proof. Consequently, Ms. Rains’ 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
3