VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00689
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00689
Petitioner: B.W.
Filed: 2024-04-30
Decided: 2025-09-15
Vaccine: DTaP; hepatitis B; Hib
Vaccination date: 2023-09-07
Condition: movement disorder and alleged seizures
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 30, 2024, Breia Weiland filed a petition on behalf of minor child B.W., alleging injury after DTaP, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccinations administered on September 7, 2023. The public dismissal decision describes the claimed condition as seizures or an ill-defined movement disorder but does not provide a detailed medical chronology.

Respondent argued that the record did not establish that B.W. had a seizure disorder, did not show six-month residual effects, and did not satisfy any Althen causation requirement. After changes in counsel and time to evaluate the record, petitioner moved to dismiss the case, stating that the available evidence and science would not support entitlement.

On September 15, 2025, Special Master Thomas L. Moran dismissed the petition with prejudice for insufficient proof. No compensation was awarded. B.W. was represented by Nathan Marchese at dismissal.

Theory of causation field:
DTaP, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccines, September 7, 2023, minor B.W., exact age not stated in the public dismissal decision, alleged movement disorder/seizures. DISMISSED at petitioner's request after counsel concluded the available facts and science could not prove entitlement. Respondent argued no seizure disorder was established, the condition was an ill-defined movement disorder, six-month sequelae were not shown, and no Althen prong was met. No expert report supported causation. Award: none. Attorney Nathan Marchese.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00689-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-14
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/15/2025) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00689-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/14/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BREIA WEILAND, *
on behalf of her minor child, B.W., * No. 24-689V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: September 15, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nathan Joseph Marchese, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioner;
Ryan Daniel Pyles, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for
respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Petitioner, Breia Weiland, filed a petition for compensation on April 30,
2024. Ms. Weiland alleged that the DTaP, Hepatitis B, and Hib vaccinations her
child B.W. received on September 7, 2023, caused B.W. to develop movement
disorder/seizures. On August 26, 2025, Ms. Weiland filed a motion for a decision
dismissing her petition.
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.

Case 1:24-vv-00689-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/14/25 Page 2 of 3
I. Procedural History
Ms. Weiland filed her petition on April 30, 2024, alleging that the DTaP,
Hepatitis B, and Hib vaccinations B.W. received on September 7, 2023, caused
B.W. to develop movement disorder/seizures. She filed medical records over the
next several months. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on November
14, 2024, and deadlines were then set for the Secretary’s Rule 4(c) Report and for
petitioner’s expert report. Order, issued Nov. 27, 2024.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) Report on February 10, 2025, arguing
against compensation. The Secretary argued that the record did not preponderantly
support that B.W. had a seizure disorder, “only that B.W. experienced symptoms
of an ill-defined ‘movement disorder,’ which is not a cognizable injury.” Resp’t’s
Rep. at 8-9. The Secretary also contended that, even if B.W. experienced seizures
at some point, “there is no evidence that the alleged seizures resulted in sequelae
lasting more than six months after vaccination.” Id. at 9. Finally, the Secretary
argued that Ms. Weiland had not satisfied any of the Althen prongs. Id. at 10.
Ms. Weiland retained new counsel in January 2025. She changed counsel
within the same firm in March 2025. On June 25, 2025, two days before the
deadline for her expert report, Ms. Weiland moved for a 60-day extension of time.
The motion was denied without prejudice to renew, as Ms. Weiland had not
provided a reason for the extension, nor shown that she had worked diligently to
meet the deadline. Order, issued June 27, 2025. Ms. Weiland renewed her motion,
explaining that her counsel retained an expert in April, and the expert required
additional time. Pet’r’s Mot., filed July 11, 2025. The motion was granted, setting
a deadline of August 26, 2025. Order, issued July 16, 2025.
On August 26, 2025, instead of filing an expert report, Ms. Weiland filed a
motion to dismiss her case, stating that “an investigation of the facts and science
supporting her case has demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove
that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” The Secretary filed a
response on September 2, 2025, advising that he did not oppose dismissal.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
2

Case 1:24-vv-00689-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/14/25 Page 3 of 3
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). 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. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Ms. Weiland filed medical records in support of her claim.
Nevertheless, Ms. Weiland wishes to have her claim dismissed and judgment
entered against her. Given Ms. Weiland’s clear intent that a judgment issue in this
case, the undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to section 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact
and conclusions of law.” For causation-in-fact cases, the Federal Circuit has
defined elements of a petitioner’s claim. Petitioners bear a burden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the vaccination brought about their injury by
providing: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the
reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship
between vaccination and injury. Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418
F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Ms. Weiland did not obtain a report from an expert proposing a theory
causally connecting the vaccinations and B.W.’s alleged injury. Therefore, Ms.
Weiland has not met her burden under the first Althen prong.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. 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