Lindgren v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Case No. 22-1174

* * * * * * * * * * * * * TAMIA LINDGREN, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: June 11, 2026

*

v. * Chief Special Master Corcoran

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.

Ryan P. Miller, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1

On September 1, 2022, Tamia Lindgren filed this action seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that the human papillomavirus vaccines she received on October 17, 2019, and January 15, 2020, caused her to develop vitiligo. Id. at Preamble.

On May 15, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending denial of entitlement. ECF No. 33. The parties thereafter engaged in expert discovery, and the case was reassigned to my docket on March 5, 2026.

Although Petitioner had previously been ordered to file a brief in support of her claim, she instead filed a motion for a decision dismissing this matter on June 10, 2026. ECF No. 58. In it, Petitioner acknowledges that dismissing her claim will result in a judgment against her, and that such judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id.

Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), a claimant may request a decision dismissing petition, even after preparation of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Such a dismissal decision will result in a judgment, although the dismissal will be with prejudice (unless otherwise indicated). Rule 21(b)(1) and (2).

Here, I find such a decision appropriate. 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 was not alleging a Table Injury and therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of her alleged injuries. To satisfy his 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). But although Petitioner has provided expert reports to support her claim, she has decided not to pursue the matter further.

Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS the Petition with prejudice. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Brian C. Corcoran Brian C. Corcoran Chief Special Master