VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01722
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01722
Petitioner: Geraldine Reed
Filed: 2025-02-05
Decided: 2025-05-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-08
Condition: neuropathy to her left arm
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Geraldine Reed filed a petition on February 5, 2025, alleging that she suffered neuropathy to her left arm as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 8, 2020. After reviewing the facts and science supporting her case, Ms. Reed concluded that she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She moved for a dismissal of her case, stating that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program. The decision notes that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not disclose sufficient evidence to establish a Table Injury, nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The decision also stated that a petition must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion, which were insufficient in this case. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01722-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/04/2025) regarding 28 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01722-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/14/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1722V
GERALDINE REED, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 5, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David Gregory Rogers, Rogers, Hofrichter & Karrh, Fayettville, GA, for Petitioner.
Jay Travis Williamson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1
On October 4, 2023, Geraldine Reed filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered injuries, including neuropathy to
her left arm, as a result of an influenza vaccine administered to her on October 8, 2020.
Petition at 1.
On January 17, 2025, Petitioner moved for a Decision dismissing her case. ECF
No. 25. Petitioner states in her motion that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science
supporting her case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that
she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. Petitioner further states
1 Because this unpublished ruling 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 ruling 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:23-vv-01722-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/14/25 Page 2 of 2
that “to proceed any further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the
Court, the [R]espondent and the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2. Petitioner notes in her Motion
that “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2), she intends to . . . reject the Vaccine
Program judgement against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at 2.
Vaccine Rule 21(b) provides that I may dismiss a petition or any claim therein at
the request of Petitioner, on terms that I consider proper, by issuance of a decision
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3).
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 one of her vaccinations, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record
does not disclose sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.”
Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive
evidence indicating that Petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was injured
by a vaccine.
For these reasons, in accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b) and Section
12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2