VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00149
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00149
Petitioner: Melissa French
Filed: 2025-04-21
Decided: 2025-05-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-10-19
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Melissa French filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccine received on October 19, 2022. The petition stated that symptoms, including tingling in her left arm and leg, began on October 21, 2022, two days after vaccination. Medical records consistently placed the onset of her symptoms within two days post-vaccination, with one record indicating onset as early as one day after vaccination. The respondent argued that the onset did not fall within the required 3-42 day timeframe for a Table GBS claim and that a prior COVID-19 infection and history of strokes presented alternative causes. The Chief Special Master found that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her GBS onset occurred within the Table's defined timeframe. Consequently, the Table GBS claim was dismissed, and the case was transferred out of the Special Processing Unit to proceed as a causation-in-fact claim, likely requiring medical expert testimony.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00149-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/21/2025) regarding 26 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00149-UNJ Document 31 Filed 05/28/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-0149V
MELISSA FRENCH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 21, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.
Ryan Pohlman Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On January 31, 2024, Melissa French 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 she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
following an influenza vaccine she received on October 19, 2022. Amended Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
(the “SPU”).
For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Table GBS claim must be dismissed
because the evidentiary record does not support the conclusion that the onset of her GBS
1 Because this Fact 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 Fact 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 1:24-vv-00149-UNJ Document 31 Filed 05/28/25 Page 2 of 5
symptoms began between 3 and 42 days after her vaccination, as required for this Table
claim. This leaves a possibly meritorious causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated, but
one that is likely to require medical expert testimony. Therefore, dismissal of the Table
claim will be accompanied by transfer of the case out of SPU for further proceedings.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately 14 months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to compensation. ECF
No. 25. Respondent specifically maintains that the onset of Petitioner’s GBS symptoms
does not fall within the required timeframe for a Table GBS claim. Rule 4(c) Report at 13.
Respondent further argued that Petitioner’s Covid-19 infection immediately before her
vaccination could be a likely alternative cause of her GBS symptoms, and that her prior
history of strokes complicates the analysis of her neurological functioning. Id. 13-15.
II. Medical History
Approximately two months prior to her vaccination, Petitioner suffered a stroke that
left her with ongoing left-sided neurological deficits. Ex. 3 at 71, 95. Petitioner also
reported that she tested positive for Covid-19 on October 9, 2022, ten days prior to her
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 15-16.
On October 19, 2022, Petitioner received a flu vaccine from her primary care
provider. Ex. 3 at 15-16. Two days later, Petitioner went to the emergency room with
complaints of chest pain that radiated to her left arm and leg. Ex. 5 at 8. She reported that
her pain began approximately ten hours prior, that she had woken up with blurry vision in
her right eye, and that she had constant tingling down her left arm. Id. She was given
antibiotics and discharged. Id. at 12.
Petitioner went to another emergency room at a different hospital about two hours
after her discharge. Ex. 3 at 959. She now reported severe left flank pain for
approximately 24 hours, along with nausea and vomiting. Id. at 962. Petitioner was
treated for her pain and discharged. Id. at 970. She returned again to the same
emergency room later that same day (October 22, 2022) with continued complaints of
lower back pain. Id. at 1042. This time, she also reported numbness, tingling, and
weakness in both legs and hands and difficulty with urinary incontinence. Id. Petitioner’s
daughter reported that Petitioner began experiencing numbness and tingling to her left
arm and leg on Thursday (two days earlier and one day post-vaccination). Id. at 1048.
Petitioner was admitted, diagnosed with GBS, and treated with IVIG. Id. at 1058. Her
EMG showed “evidence of severe generalized polyneuropathy with acute denervation.”
Id. at 1060. Petitioner also had a brain MRI that revealed a “new stroke of the deep left
corona radiata.” Id.
2

Case 1:24-vv-00149-UNJ Document 31 Filed 05/28/25 Page 3 of 5
Petitioner continued to receive treatment at this hospital through October 31, 2022.
Ex. 3 at 1058. On the day of her hospital discharge, Petitioner’s neurologist thought
Petitioner’s Covid-19 infection “may have provoked” her GBS and that it was less likely
to have been caused by her flu vaccine or gastroenteritis. Id. at 2788. She was transferred
(on a ventilator) to a long-term acute care facility where she remained until November 8,
2022. Ex. 3 at 2768, 2780. Petitioner then remained in long term care facilities through
May 20, 2023. Ex. 4(b) at 1348-49. She then continued to receive treatment on an
outpatient basis.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1). A
special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
3

Case 1:24-vv-00149-UNJ Document 31 Filed 05/28/25 Page 4 of 5
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, GBS is compensable if it manifests within 3-42 days
(not less than three days and not more than 42 days) of the administration of an influenza
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(D). (Further criteria for establishing a GBS Table
Injury case be found under the accompanying qualifications and aids to interpretation. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)). Any onset outside that timeframe prevents the matter from
succeeding as a Table claim, although it can often still be maintained as a non-Table,
causation-in-fact claim. All GBS Table claims also require “the absence of an identified
more likely alternative diagnosis.”
IV. Finding of Fact
Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Table GBS injury following a flu vaccine
she received on October 19, 2022. Amended Petition at 1, ¶53. The Amended Petition
itself alleges that Petitioner first sought treatment for symptoms, including “tingling that
radiated down her left arm and leg” on October 21, 2022 - two days after her
vaccination. Id. at ¶4. Petitioner’s medical records also consistently place the onset of
Petitioner’s symptoms sooner than three days after her vaccination. See e.g., Ex. 3 at
962 (Two days after vaccination, Petitioner reported severe back/flank pain for the
previous 24 hours); Ex. 3 at 1048 (Petitioner began experiencing numbness and tingling
4

Case 1:24-vv-00149-UNJ Document 31 Filed 05/28/25 Page 5 of 5
one day after vaccination); Ex. 5 at 8-12 (Petitioner reported chest pain for ten hours
with constant tingling down her left arm two days after vaccination). And no records
place onset within the required timeframe for a Table GBS claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s
Table claim must be dismissed, and the claim can only proceed as a causation-in-fact
claim.
In addition to the onset issue, Respondent argues that “Petitioner’s Covid-19
infection is a clear potential alternate cause for her GBS.” Rule 4(c) Report at 13-14.
Further, Petitioner also suffered one or more strokes in close proximity to her GBS
diagnoses that contributed neurologic symptoms. See e.g., Ex. 3 at 71, 95, 1060. These
issues are likely to require medical expert testimony to resolve.
Conclusion
Petitioner cannot preponderantly establish that her GBS onset began within the
Table’s defined timeframe, and thus this claim can only proceed as a causation-in-fact
matter. Accordingly, the case shall be transferred out of SPU for such resolution.
Petitioner’s Table GBS claim is therefore DISMISSED, and the case will be reassigned
to a Special Master outside of the SPU.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5