VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00269
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00269
Petitioner: Thomas Stokes
Filed: 2025-02-14
Decided: 2026-02-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-10-05
Condition: autoimmune encephalopathy
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 14, 2025, Thomas Stokes filed a petition seeking compensation under the Vaccine Program, alleging autoimmune encephalopathy after receiving influenza on October 5, 2022.

He stated that continuing would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, respondent, and the Vaccine Program.

Mr. Stokes moved to dismiss because he was unable to secure an expert opinion; the dismissal decision does not provide a clinical chronology, diagnostic testing, treatment history, or expert analysis.

On February 26, 2026, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen dismissed the petition, and no vaccine-injury compensation was awarded.

Petitioner was represented by Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA.

Theory of causation field:
influenza vaccine on October 5, 2022 (exact age not stated) allegedly causing autoimmune encephalopathy. DISMISSED.  Mr. Stokes moved to dismiss because he was unable to secure an expert opinion; the dismissal decision does not provide a clinical chronology, diagnostic testing, treatment history, or expert analysis. Award/status: no vaccine-injury compensation. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen; petition filed February 14, 2025; decision February 26, 2026. Attorney: Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA. No compensable causation finding.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00269-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/26/2026) regarding 20 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00269-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: February 26, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THOMAS STOKES, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 25-269V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On February 14, 2025, Thomas Stokes (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program).2
Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on October 5, 2022, he developed autoimmune encephalopathy. Id. at ¶ 3.
On February 26, 2026, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing his petition.
Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (“Pet’r. Mot.”) (ECF No. 19). Petitioner stated that he has been
unable to secure an expert opinion in this matter and that continuing to proceed would be
unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, respondent, and the Vaccine Program.
Pet’r. Mot. at ¶ 3. Petitioner understands that a decision dismissing his claim will result in a
judgment against him and such judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party:
(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that
includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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-1 to -34 (2012)
(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
300aa.

Case 1:25-vv-00269-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 2
¶ 4. Further, petitioner understands that he may apply for attorney may apply for attorneys’ fees
and costs once the case is dismissed and judgment is entered against him and respondent reserves
the right to oppose, it appropriate, the application for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at ¶ 5.
Petitioner also intends to protect his rights to file a civil action in the future and pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(2), he intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against him.
Id. at ¶ 6.
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 is not alleging a Table Injury and
therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of his alleged injuries. To satisfy
her 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).
Under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may not award compensation based on the
petitioner’s claims alone. §13(a)(1). Petitioner has not submitted an expert opinion or medical
records to support his claim.
Vaccine Rule 21(b) allows the special master or the Court to dismiss a petition at the
petitioner’s request on terms that the special master or the court considers a proper issuance of a
decision pursuant to §300aa-12(d)(3). A dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(b) will be with
prejudice and result in judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of § 300aa-21(a).
Vaccine Rule 21(b).
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for
insufficient proof. The Clerk of the Court 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’ jointly filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2