VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00881
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00881
Petitioner: Joshua Kasabian
Filed: 2024-06-10
Decided: 2025-05-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2023-11-21
Condition: serum sickness and Celiac’s disease
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Joshua Kasabian filed a claim in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that he developed serum sickness and Celiac's disease as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 21, 2023. After a status conference, Mr. Kasabian filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, stating that an investigation of the available evidence and science demonstrated it was unlikely he could prove entitlement to compensation. He believed proceeding further would be unreasonable and a waste of resources. Mr. Kasabian understood that dismissal would result in a judgment against him and that he would have the right to file a civil action. The respondent did not oppose the motion. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the case for insufficient proof, as Mr. Kasabian was not alleging a Table injury and had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence a logical sequence of cause and effect showing the vaccination was the reason for his alleged injuries. Judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00881-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/20/2025) regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00881-UNJ Document 35 Filed 08/11/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: May 20, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOSHUA KASABIAN, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 24-881V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On June 10, 2024, Joshua Kasabian (“petitioner”) filed a claim in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of
receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 21, 2023, he developed serum sickness and
Celiac’s disase. Id.
On May 20, 2025, petitioner filed a motion for a voluntarily dismissal of his claim.
Petitioner’s (“Pet’r”) Motion for a dismissal decision. Pet’r Motion (ECF No. 28). After a status
conference held on May 7, 2025, petitioner filed this motion. Petitioner’s motion states that “an
investigation of the avilable objective evidence and science supporting his case and the
discussion [during the status conference] have demonstrated to petitioner that it is unlikely he
will be able to prove entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
Id. at ¶ 1. Petitioner believes that to proceed further would be unreasonable and waste the
resources of the Court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioner
understands that a dismissal of his claim will result in a judgment against him and has been
advised that such judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3.
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 1:24-vv-00881-UNJ Document 35 Filed 08/11/25 Page 2 of 2
Petitioner further undersatnds that the dismissal will result in a judgment pursusant to Vaccine
Rule 11 for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a). Id. Petitioner further understands that he may
apply for fees and costs once his case is dismissed and a judgment is entered against him. Id. at ¶
4. Respondent does not oppose this motion. Id. Petitioner intends to protect his rights to file a
civil action in the future, and he intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment agains
him and elect to file a civil action. Id. ¶ 5.
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 in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving
either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioner was not alleging a Table Injury and
therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of his alleged injuries. To satisfy
his burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(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 &
Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In this case, the medical records are insufficient to establish entitlement and petitioner’s
medical records do not demonstrate by prepondernat evidence a logical sequence of cause and
effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.
For these reasons, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. 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 shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
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