VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-02086 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-02086 Petitioner: K.M. Filed: 2024-12-19 Decided: 2025-12-31 Vaccine: measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) Vaccination date: 2022-11-16 Condition: cellulitis requiring irrigation and debridement, resulting in a scar Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: On December 19, 2024, Nathan and Jamie Mielke filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, K.M. They alleged that K.M. suffered cellulitis requiring irrigation and debridement, leaving a scar, as a result of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine he received on November 16, 2022. Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) report filed December 30, 2025. Respondent stated that a preponderance of the medical evidence established that K.M.'s right-arm injury was caused in fact by the MMR vaccine, that no other cause had been identified, and that medical records showed residual effects for more than six months. Special Master Jennifer A. Shah found K.M. entitled to compensation on December 31, 2025. The public ruling does not provide the onset story, hospital or surgical records, or treatment details, and it states that damages should be limited to the right-arm injury and related sequelae. Damages remained pending. Theory of causation field: MMR vaccine November 16, 2022 causing right-arm cellulitis requiring irrigation/debridement and resulting scar in K.M., a minor child; exact age not stated. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; damages pending. Respondent conceded off-Table causation-in-fact, no other cause, and residual effects over six months; damages scope limited to right-arm injury and sequelae. Public ruling lacks onset/surgical detail. SM Jennifer A. Shah; petition December 19, 2024; decision December 31, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-02086-0 Date issued/filed: 2026-02-03 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/31/2025) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Jennifer A. Shah. (am) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-02086-UNJ Document 26 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-2086V Filed: December 31, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NATHAN MIELKE and JAMIE MIELKE, * parents of K.M., a minor, * * Petitioners, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nathaniel C. Enos, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioners. James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Shah, Special Master: On December 19, 2024, Nathan and Jamie Mielke (“Petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The petition alleges that K.M., their minor child, “suffered cellulitis, requiring irrigation and debridement resulting in a scar,” as 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 1 Case 1:24-vv-02086-UNJ Document 26 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2 a result of the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) vaccination he received November 16, 2022. Id. at 1; ECF No. 23 (“Resp’t’s Rep.”) at 1. On December 30, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in which he concedes that Petitioners are entitled to compensation in this case. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, 6. Specifically, Respondent states: Respondent has concluded that a preponderance of the medical evidence establishes that K.M.’s right arm injury was caused-in-fact by the MMR vaccine he received on November 16, 2022. Respondent has not identified any other cause for K.M.’s injury, and the medical records outlined above demonstrate that he suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioners have satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 5. Respondent argues that the scope of damages should be “limited to K.M.’s right arm injury and its related sequelae only.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioners are entitled to compensation. A separate order for the damages phase of this case will issue shortly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jennifer A. Shah Jennifer A. Shah Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-02086-cl-extra-11250161 Date issued/filed: 2026-02-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10783524 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-2086V Filed: December 31, 2025 ************************* * * NATHAN MIELKE and JAMIE MIELKE, * parents of K.M., a minor, * * Petitioners, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************* * Nathaniel C. Enos, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioners. James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Shah, Special Master: On December 19, 2024, Nathan and Jamie Mielke (“Petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The petition alleges that K.M., their minor child, “suffered cellulitis, requiring irrigation and debridement resulting in a scar,” as 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 1 a result of the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) vaccination he received November 16, 2022. Id. at 1; ECF No. 23 (“Resp’t’s Rep.”) at 1. On December 30, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in which he concedes that Petitioners are entitled to compensation in this case. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, 6. Specifically, Respondent states: Respondent has concluded that a preponderance of the medical evidence establishes that K.M.’s right arm injury was caused-in-fact by the MMR vaccine he received on November 16, 2022. Respondent has not identified any other cause for K.M.’s injury, and the medical records outlined above demonstrate that he suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioners have satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 5. Respondent argues that the scope of damages should be “limited to K.M.’s right arm injury and its related sequelae only.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioners are entitled to compensation. A separate order for the damages phase of this case will issue shortly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jennifer A. Shah Jennifer A. Shah Special Master 2