VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00169
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00169
Petitioner: Linda Andrade
Filed: 2024-02-01
Decided: 2025-06-23
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2021-02-11
Condition: Mixed Connective Tissue Disease
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Linda Andrade filed a claim alleging that she developed Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) as a result of a TDaP vaccination she received on February 11, 2021. As this was not a Table injury, Ms. Andrade was required to prove that the vaccine caused her injury by establishing a medical theory of causation, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. She filed her petition on February 1, 2024. During the proceedings, Ms. Andrade was unable to find an expert witness to support her claim of vaccine causation, with two qualified experts declining to offer an opinion. Her treating providers also did not attribute her MCTD to the vaccine. Due to the lack of expert testimony and insufficient medical records to support causation, the court found that Ms. Andrade failed to meet the burden of proof for an off-Table claim. Consequently, her petition was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00169-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-22
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/23/2025) regarding 25 DECISION Dismissing Petition. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00169-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/22/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: June 23, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINDA ANDRADE, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 24-169V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sean Franks Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On February 1, 2024, Linda Andrade (“petitioner”) filed a claim in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleges that she suffered from Mixed Connective
Tissue Disease (“MCTD”) as a result of the TDaP vaccination she received on February 11,
2021. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, I find that petitioner has
failed to establish by preponderant evidence that she in entitled to compensation, and her petition
is DISMISSED.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed her claim for compensation on February 1, 2024 along with medical
records to accompany her claim. On December 30, 2024, petitioner filed a status report
indicating that she was unable to find an expert to offer an opinion supporting vaccine causation.
Status Rept., Dec. 30, 2024 (ECF No. 21). A telephonic status conference was held on May 30,
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party:
(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that
includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.

Case 1:24-vv-00169-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/22/25 Page 2 of 3
2025 to discuss the viability of petitioner’s claim given the lack of an expert witness. During the
status conference, petitioner’s counsel noted that two qualified experts, one of whom regularly
testified in the program, declined to offer an opinion in support of petitioner’s claim. The
undersigned issued a Show Cause Order on June 12, 2025. Petitioner’s counsel filed a status
report the next day, indicating that he was still unable to reach petitioner or locate an expert
witness to support petitioner’s case. Status Rept., June 16, 2025 (ECF No. 24).
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Legal Standard and Analysis
To receive compensation through the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury”— i.e., an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table — corresponding to
a vaccine that she received, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccination. See §§ 11(c)(1), 13(a)(1)(A); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d
1317, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Because petitioner does not allege that she suffered a Table
Injury, she must prove that a vaccine she received caused her injury. To do so, she must
establish, by preponderant evidence: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccine and
her injury (“Althen Prong One”); (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccine was the reason for her injury (“Althen Prong Two”); and (3) a showing of a proximate
temporal relationship between the vaccine and her injury (“Althen Prong Three”). § 13(a)(1);
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner cannot
establish entitlement to compensation based solely on his assertions; rather, a vaccine claim must
be supported either by medical records or by the opinion of a medical doctor. § 13(a)(1). In
determining whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, the special master shall consider all
material in the record, including “any…conclusion, [or] medical judgment…which is contained
in the record regarding…causation.” § 13(b)(1)(A). In addition to petitioner’s lack of a medical
opinion to support her off-Table claim, petitioner’s medical records also do not support vaccine
causation. While the records support the fact that petitioner received the TDaP vaccine on
February 11, 2021, and support a diagnosis of MCTD, none of petitioner’s treating providers
attributed her MCTD to the vaccine. Thus, petitioner’s medical records, as they stand, fail to
meet the Althen standard on their own, and she must have an expert to support vaccine causation.
III. Conclusion
Upon review of the record as a whole, petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence
that TDaP vaccination she received caused her to suffer from mixed connective tissue disorder,
as she is unable to find an expert to support her claim. Therefore, petitioner has failed to show
cause why her claim should not be dismissed, and the petition therefore must be DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

Case 1:24-vv-00169-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/22/25 Page 3 of 3
s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3