VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01899
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01899
Petitioner: Bruce A. Ling, Jr.
Filed: 2024-11-01
Decided: 2025-08-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-11-01
Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 1, 2024, Bruce A. Ling, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed another petition seeking compensation for Guillain-Barre syndrome allegedly caused by an influenza vaccine he received in November 2011. The public decision identifies him as an adult petitioner but does not state his exact age.

Chief Special Master Corcoran explained that the claim was facially untimely because even a GBS onset one year after vaccination would have accrued more than twelve years earlier, far outside the Vaccine Act's three-year limitations period. He also noted that Mr. Ling had repeatedly filed cases arising from the same alleged vaccine injury since 2014, and those prior matters had been denied or dismissed because he did not substantiate a vaccine injury or GBS diagnosis.

After an order to show cause, Mr. Ling argued that prior proceedings violated due process and that his own testimony and circumstantial evidence should suffice without a formal GBS diagnosis. Respondent answered that the claim was untimely and unsupported by medical records, physician opinion, expert opinion, or other evidence substantiating GBS. On August 12, 2025, the Chief Special Master dismissed the claim and entered an anti-filing order requiring leave of court for any future petition. The decision was reissued for public availability on December 5, 2025 after no redactions were proposed.

Theory of causation field:
Adult pro se petitioner; influenza vaccine in November 2011 allegedly causing GBS. DISMISSED. CSM Corcoran found the 2024 petition grossly untimely and unsupported by medical records, treater statements, or expert input establishing GBS or vaccine causation. Prior related Ling petitions had been denied/dismissed. Anti-filing order entered requiring leave before future petitions/correspondence. Internal decision August 12, 2025; public reissue December 5, 2025. No award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01899-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-05
Pages: 4
Docket text: d public availability information.) (fm). Petitioner served via First Class mail on 12/5/2025. (fm).PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/12/2025) regarding 18 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made. (Main Document 27 replaced on 12/5/2025 to ad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-01899-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1899V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BRUCE A. LING, JR., * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: August 12, 2025
*
v. * Reissued for Public Availability:
* December 5, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bruce A. Ling, Jr., Tallahassee, Fl, pro se Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ENTITLEMENT DECISION AND ANTI-FILING ORDER1
This matter was initiated on November 1, 2024. In it, Bruce A. Ling, Jr. seeks
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Program”). Petition
(ECF No. 1) at 1. Mr. Ling alleges he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received in November 2011.
Facially, the claim is untimely. Any GBS onset even one-year post-vaccination (a
timeframe highly unlikely to be deemed medically acceptable for a vaccine-related injury) would
mean the claim accrued in the fall of 2012—over 12 years ago, and hence well after the expiration
of the three-year statute of limitations for Vaccine Act claims.
Moreover, since 2014, Mr. Ling has filed four cases in the United States Court of Federal
Claims/Office of Special Masters arising from the same underlying facts concerning alleged
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this Decision was initially filed on August 12, 2025, and the parties were afforded
14 days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose any redactions. Accordingly, this Decision is reissued in
its original form for posting on the court’s website.

Case 1:24-vv-01899-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4
injuries he suffered as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received. Not counting the present
matter, those cases include:
• Ling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1017, 2017 WL 3814649 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 21, 2017) (denying compensation for inability to substantiate petitioner’s alleged
vaccine injury, or any cognizable injury);
• Ling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-858V, No. 2019 WL 2606774 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 21, 2019) (dismissing petitioner’s claim for failure to provide evidence
substantiating the assertion that he suffered from GBS following his November 2021
vaccination), mot. for rev. den’d, 145 Fed. Cl. 778 (2019); and
• Ling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-61V, 2021 WL 3913935 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Aug. 17, 2021), appeal dismissed, No. 2023-1072, 2023 WL 8447276 (Fed. Cir. Dec.
6, 2023).
Following a review of Petitioner’s previously dismissed cases, I issued an order directing
Petitioner to show cause why his fourth claim should not be dismissed for an inability to
substantiate, via medical records or treater statements, his alleged vaccine-related injury. See
Order, dated May 14, 2025 (ECF No. 13). Petitioner filed his response on June 5, 2025. Response,
(ECF No. 14) (“Br.”). In it, Petitioner argued that “his constitutional right to due process has been
repeatedly violated in prior dismissed cases,” and that he “has consistently submitted evidence
showing symptoms following [his] November 20[21] influenza vaccination while incarcerated.”
Br. at 2. Moreover, Petitioner maintains that “the absence of a formal GBS diagnosis should not
be dispositive in light of corroborating circumstantial and testimonial evidence.” Id. at 4.
On July 14, 2025, Respondent filed a brief reacting to Petitioner’s Response. See
Respondent’s Response, dated July 14, 2025 (ECF No. 16) (“Opp.”). Respondent argues that the
Petition is not only untimely, but fails on the merits because Petitioner has not submitted any
medical records, expert opinions, or any other evidence that would substantiate a diagnosis of
GBS. Opp. at 3. He further maintains that Petitioner’s word alone “is insufficient to establish a
diagnosis of GBS” and entitle him to compensation. Id. 2
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either: (1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations in question within a statutorily prescribed period of time
or, in the alternative, (2) that his illnesses were actually caused by a vaccine (a “Non-Table
Injury”). See Sections 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1), and 14(a), as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; §
2 On August 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a reply in further support of his Show Cause reaction. Reply, dated August 5,
2025 (ECF No. 17). But the reply is nonresponsive to my May Order, repeats prior arguments, and otherwise offers
nothing that would support allowing the claim to continue.
2

Case 1:24-vv-01899-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4
11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.
Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Vaccine Program petitioners bear a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof.
Section 13(1)(a). That is, a petitioner must offer evidence that leads the “trier of fact to believe
that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of
the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at
1322 n.2; see also Snowbank Enter. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 476, 486 (1984) (mere conjecture
or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard). Proof of medical certainty is not
required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In
particular, a petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine was “not only [the] but-for cause of the
injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1321
(quoting Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 1999));
Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A petitioner may
not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his assertions; rather, the petition must be
supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1).
This matter is grossly untimely, and is properly dismissed on those grounds alone. But in
addition, Petitioner has not provided any sufficient persuasive evidence, such as medical records,
treater statements, or expert input, establishing that the alleged injury that Petitioner experienced
could have been caused by the vaccination received (see § 11(c)(1)(D)(i)). Petitioner’s claim
therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
In addition, I note that Petitioner’s repeated filings and submissions offer indicia of
frivolousness and a pattern of harassment. See Hemphill v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 2010-
1047 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2010) (finding that patterns of behavior, as well as the number and the
content of filings, may be indicia of frivolousness and harassment); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427,
431 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Under the standard established by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in In re Powell, these indicia include both the number of case filings and their
lack of merit. Id. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s claim is hereby DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion
for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision3;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is immediately enjoined from filing any new
petition in the United States Court of Federal Claims without an order from the Court granting him
leave to file;
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
3

Case 1:24-vv-01899-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner seeks to file a new petition, he shall submit a
Motion for Leave to File that explains how the new petition is timely and involves new matters
not previously raised in any prior proceedings in this Court. Any Motion for Leave to File a new
petition must include as an attachment a full petition that meets all the requirements of Vaccine
Rule 2; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall reject all future petitions and
correspondence from Petitioner unless filed by leave of the Court.
A copy of this Order shall be sent via certified mail to the following address:
Bruce A. Ling, Jr.
2236 David & Sibbie Lane
Tallahassee, FL 32317
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4