Sager v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: May 1, 2025 *************************

LESLIE SAGER, * * Special Master Young Petitioner, * v. * No. 23-413V *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * *

Respondent. * *************************

Jessi Carin Huff, Mctlaw, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DISMISSAL DECISION1

On March 24, 2023, Leslie Sager (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on August 28, 2020, caused her to suffer Guillain- Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Id.

On January 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition. ECF No. 45. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting [her] case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that it is unlikely that she will be able to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. She continued, “to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the [R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. Petitioner acknowledged judgment will result against her and she intends to elect to reject judgment to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner understood she may file for attorneys’ fees and costs once her case is dismissed and judgment is entered. Id. at 1. Respondent filed a response on January 15, 2025. ECF No. 46. Respondent expressly reserved the right to question good faith and reasonable basis of Petitioner’s claim and to oppose, if appropriate, Petitioner’s application for fees and costs. Id. at 1. Respondent otherwise had no objection to Petitioner’s motion for a decision dismissing her petition. Id.

To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that Petitioner’s alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Herbrina D. S. Young Herbrina D. S. Young Special Master