VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438 Petitioner: Kevin William Cassaday Filed: 2025-08-26 Decided: 2025-09-23 Vaccine: COVID-19 vaccine discussed; no covered VICP vaccine alleged Vaccination date: Condition: no covered Vaccine Act injury pleaded Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: On August 26, 2025, Kevin William Cassaday, proceeding pro se from Hope, Michigan, filed a petition under the Vaccine Program. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition on September 23, 2025 because it did not state an actual Vaccine Act claim. The public decision explains that the petition did not plead that Mr. Cassaday received a covered vaccine and did not allege a specific vaccine-related injury suffered by him or by someone for whom he could act as a legal representative. Instead, the petition discussed allegations about COVID-19 vaccines, which are not covered by the Vaccine Program. Mr. Cassaday sought reconsideration on September 24, 2025. The Chief Special Master denied reconsideration on October 6, 2025, explaining that the motion did not provide new evidence and did not cure the absence of a covered vaccine or covered injury. The decisions were reissued for public availability on November 5, 2025. Theory of causation field: Adult pro se petitioner Kevin William Cassaday; no covered VICP vaccine or covered vaccine-related injury pleaded; COVID-19 vaccine allegations discussed but COVID-19 vaccines are outside the Vaccine Program. DISMISSED September 23, 2025 for failure to state a claim; reconsideration denied October 6, 2025. No injury compensation. SM Corcoran. Petition filed August 26, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-11-05 Pages: 2 Docket text: dd CSM signature) (ep). Petitioner served via e-mail on 11/6/2025 (ep). PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/23/2025) regarding 8 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ers) Service on parties made. (Main Document 12 replaced on 11/6/2025 to a -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:25-vv-01438-UNJ Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 2 CORRECTED Case 1:25-vv-01438-UNJ Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438-cl-extra-11197894 Date issued/filed: 2025-11-05 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10731309 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1438V ************************* * KEVIN WILLIAM CASSADAY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: October 6, 2025 * v. * * Reissued for Public SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Availability: November 5, 2025 AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************* Kevin William Cassaday, Hope, MI, pro se Petitioner. Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 On August 26, 2025, Kevin William Cassaday filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”). 2 Petition (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). I dismissed the matter on September 23, 2025 (see Decision, dated Sept. 23, 2025 (ECF No. 8) (the “Decision”)), largely because it failed in significant ways to state an actual Vaccine Act claim, setting forth that the Petitioner did receive a covered vaccine, and that he alleged an injury resulting from it. See generally Pet at 10–20. 1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Order will be available to the public in its present form. Id. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule l 8(b), this Decision was initially filed on February 28, 2023, 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. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Petitioner has now requested reconsideration. Motion for Reconsideration, dated Sept. 24, 2025 (ECF No. 9) (“Mot.”). But the request is not well-founded. Vaccine Rule 10(e) provides that either party may seek reconsideration of a special master’s decision within twenty-one days after the decision’s issuance. Special masters have the discretion to grant a motion for reconsideration if to do so would be in the “interest of justice.” Vaccine Rule 10(e)(3). As noted by another special master, “there is a dearth of law interpreting Vaccine Rule 10(e)(3),” save for the conclusion that (as the rule itself makes clear) it is within the special master’s discretion to decide what the “interest of justice” is in a given case. R.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-632V, 2010 WL 5572074, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2011) (granting reconsideration of decision dismissing case for failure to prosecute). Many decisions assume that the standard for reconsideration is congruent with the “manifest injustice” standard utilized under Rule 59(a) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, which has been defined as “clearly apparent or obvious” unfairness. Amnex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 555, 557 (2002); see also R.K., 2010 WL 5572074, at *3–5 (citations omitted). I have previously found reconsideration appropriate when the movant’s request incorporates new (meaning not previously available) and relevant evidence that would have impacted the outcome of my determination had it been offered initially. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Luna v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-496V, 2018 WL 774256, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion for reconsideration of final attorney’s fees and costs decision when petitioner submitted previously-unfiled billing records). By contrast, I have denied reconsideration requests where the movant simply disagrees with my initial decision and has offered no truly “new” evidence. See, e.g., D’Tiole v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-085V, 2016 WL 8136296 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 21, 2016), mot. for review den’d, 132 Fed. Cl. 421 (2017), aff’d, 726 F. App’x 809 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Kerrigan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16- 270V, 2016 WL 7575240 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 22, 2016). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration appears to include the contention that he did receive a COVID-19 vaccine (albeit without specifying the date of administration). See Mot. at 2. But as noted in my Decision, the COVID-19 vaccine is not covered by the Vaccine Program. Decision at 1-2. Otherwise, the Motion provides no additional evidence not previously considered in the Decision, and does not show how it would be in the interests of justice to grant reconsideration. The bases for dismissal set forth in my Decision remain, and Petitioner’s reconsideration request only attempts to reargue points already addressed. He therefore does not meet the standard for reconsideration. Accordingly, and for the aforementioned reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is Denied. Petitioner’s existing deadline for filing of a motion for review of the Decision, as set forth by the Vaccine Rules, will continue to run in from the issuance of the Decision. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438-cl-extra-11197895 Date issued/filed: 2025-11-05 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10731310 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1438V ************************* * KEVIN WILLIAM CASSADAY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: September 23, 2025 * v. * * Reissued for Public SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Availability: November 5, 2025 AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************* Kevin William Cassaday, Hope, MI, pro se Petitioner. Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1 On August 26, 2025, Kevin William Cassaday filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”). 2 Petition (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). The Petition alleges claims wholly unrelated to a vaccine-related injury allegedly suffered by Petitioner, or anyone else for that matter. See generally Pet at 10–20. Thus, it does not even plead that Petitioner received a covered vaccine, and instead discusses at length allegations regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, which is not covered by the Vaccine Program. See, e.g., id at 1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule l 8(b), this Decision was initially filed on February 28, 2023, 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. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 15. It also does not allege a specific injury, suffered by Petitioner or someone for whom he could act as a legal representative. The Petition thus does not seek the kind of redress the Vaccine Act was intended to permit. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims is limited, and jurisdiction under the Vaccine Act is even further limited. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Section12(a). “The United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Federal Claims special masters ... have jurisdiction over proceedings to determine if a petitioner under Section 11 is entitled to compensation under the Program and the amount of such compensation.” Section 12(a). Special masters cannot determine or decide claims unrelated to the Program. 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; § 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). Here, Petitioner has neither asserted a Table Claim nor a Non-Table Claim, and has not otherwise even established receipt of a covered vaccine. As a result, the Petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for the aforementioned reasons, the Petition is 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 Decision. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 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. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01438-cl-extra-11198792 Date issued/filed: 2025-11-05 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10732207 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRECTED 3Jn tbr Wnitrb �tatr.s QCourt of §rbrral QCiaim.s OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1438V ************************* * KEVIN WILLIAM CASSADAY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: October 6, 2025 * V. * * Reissued for Public SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Availability: November 5, 2025 AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * *•• * ***** *•** **•* ** *** *** Kevin William Cassaday, Hope, MI, pro se Petitioner. Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 On August 26, 2025, Kevin William Cassaday filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the "Vaccine Program"). 2 Petition (ECF No. 1 ("Pet."). I dismissed the matter on September 23, 2025 (see Decision, dated Sept. 23, 2025 (ECF No. 8) (the "Decision")), largely because it failed in significant ways to state an actual Vaccine Act claim, setting forth that the Petitioner did receive a covered vaccine, and that he alleged an injury resulting from it. See generally Pet at 10-20. 1 Under Vaccine Rule l 8(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Order will be available to the public in its present form. Id. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 1 8(b), this Decision was initially filed on October 6, 2025, and the parties were afforded 14 days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose ariy redactions. Accordingly, this Decision is reissued in its original form for posting on the court's website. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat.3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-10-34 (2012)) (hereinafter "Vaccine Act" or "the Act"). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §300aa.