VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00866
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00866
Petitioner: G.S.
Filed: 2025-07-29
Decided: 2025-08-25
Vaccine: Rotateq
Vaccination date: 2022-07-02
Condition: intussusception
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Serah G. Starcher, mother of G.S., a minor, filed a petition for vaccine compensation on July 29, 2025, on behalf of her son. She alleged that the Rotateq vaccine administered to G.S. on July 2, 2022, caused him to develop intussusception. The petition was filed by Dennis W. Potts, Esq. The respondent was represented by Dima Atiya, Esq. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth issued the decision. To be eligible for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a petitioner must demonstrate either that the injury is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a "Table Injury") or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record in this case did not contain evidence of a Table Injury. Furthermore, the record lacked persuasive evidence that the alleged intussusception was vaccine-caused or vaccine-related. The public decision notes that claims cannot be awarded based solely on the petitioner's assertions; they must be supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion. In this instance, the petition was not supported by sufficient medical records, and no medical opinion was offered to support a finding of entitlement. Consequently, Special Master Roth determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccination. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and the Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Serah G. Starcher alleged that the Rotateq vaccine administered to her son G.S. on July 2, 2022, caused him to develop intussusception. The case was dismissed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth on August 25, 2025, for insufficient proof. The petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Specifically, the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" corresponding to the vaccination, nor did it provide persuasive evidence that the alleged intussusception was actually caused by the vaccine. The petition lacked sufficient supporting medical records and did not include a competent physician's opinion to establish causation. Petitioner was represented by Dennis W. Potts, Esq., and the respondent by Dima Atiya, Esq.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00866-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/29/2025) regarding 28 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (nb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00866-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-866V
Filed: July 29, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SERAH G. STARCHER, mother, *
individually and in her capacity as the *
Prochein Ami of G.S., a minor, *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dennis W. Potts, Esq., Potts & Potts, Honolulu, HI, for petitioner.
Dima Atiya, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1
Roth, Special Master:
On June 6, 2024, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”)2 on behalf of her son G.S., alleging that
the Rotateq vaccine he received on July 2, 2022 caused him to develop intussusception. Petition,
ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under
the Program. On July 28, 2025, petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision requesting that
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),
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. Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public.
Id.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat.
3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter,
individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:24-vv-00866-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 2
her case be dismissed. ECF No. 27.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to his vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that
petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.
Under the Act, 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. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records
supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however,
has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination.
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
2