Bernadette Rogers, As Legal Representative for Willie Lee Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BERNADETTE ROGERS, AS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR WILLIE LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-2176
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-vv-00510-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
______________________
Decided: May 9, 2024
______________________
BERNADETTE R OGERS , Riverview, FL, pro se.
CLAUDIA BARNES G ANGI, Torts Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent-appellee. Also represented by ALEXIS B.
BABCOCK, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO,
HEATHER L YNN P EARLMAN.
______________________
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

ROGERS v. HHS 2
Before L OURIE, SCHALL , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
This is a case brought under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as
amended (“the Vaccine Act”). Bernadette Rogers, acting as
legal representative of her mother, Willie Lee Williams, ap-
peals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal
Claims (“Claims Court”) denying her petition to review the
Special Master’s dismissal of her claim. Rogers v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-510V (Fed. Cl. Jul. 14, 2023),
App. 5–15 (filed under seal); Rogers v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 22-510V, 2023 WL 4637147 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 11, 2023), App. 16–21 (“Decision”). We af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
Williams, at age ninety-one, was hospitalized at Tampa
General Hospital on February 2, 2022. Decision at *1–2.
Rogers alleges that, while in the hospital, Williams re-
ceived an influenza vaccine and a polysaccharide pneumo-
coccal vaccine. Id. Williams was subsequently discharged
from the hospital on February 15, 2022, before passing
away on February 22, 2022. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1,
5.
Rogers petitioned for compensation under the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vac-
cine Program”). According to Rogers, the alleged influenza
and polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines contributed to
William’s death. Decision at *1. The Secretary argued that
the Vaccine Program does not cover the polysaccharide
pneumococcal vaccine and that there was no evidence that
Williams had received an influenza vaccine in February
2022. Id. at *2.
The Special Master found that although the evidence
showed that Williams had received the pneumococcal poly-
saccharide vaccine, the Vaccine Program “expressly
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

ROGERS v. HHS 3
excluded” said vaccine. Decision at *2 (citing National Vac-
cine Injury Compensation Program: Addition of Pneumo-
coccal Conjugate Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 66
Fed. Reg. 28166 (May 22, 2001)). He therefore concluded
that “Rogers cannot receive compensation on a claim based
on the polysaccharide vaccine through the Vaccine Pro-
gram, and the claim must be dismissed.” Id. (collecting
cases).
Regarding the alleged influenza vaccine, the Special
Master found that the “supplemental records from Tampa
General Hospital indicat[e] that Ms. Williams did not re-
ceive the flu vaccine in February 2022.” Id. (citing App.
2431); see also id. at *3 (“[T]he evidence shows that Ms. Wil-
liams did not receive the alleged flu vaccine.”). Specifically,
he found that the evidence showed that administration of
the influenza vaccine was deferred and ultimately discon-
tinued due to Williams’s discharge from the hospital. Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. at 1 (acknowledging that “records
dated 2/2022 states Fluvaril discontinued at discharge”);
id. at 5 (supplemental hospital records indicating the influ-
enza vaccine had been “Discontinued” due to “Patient Dis-
charge”); App. 224 (finding that the “discharge report
indicates that Ms. Williams ‘deferred’ the administration
of the flu vaccine”). Because Rogers was unable to show
that Williams “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine
Injury Table,” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(A), her case was
“dismissed for failure to present evidence (medical rec-
ords).” Decision at *3.
Rogers filed a petition for review by the Claims Court.
In addition to restating her claims presented to the Special
Master, Rogers made various other allegations, including
criminal and tortious acts. Those claims are not generally
appropriate for inclusion in a Vaccine Act petition, but the
1 App. 243, filed under seal, is publicly available at
Appellant’s Informal Br. at 5.
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

ROGERS v. HHS 4
court concluded that even if it generously read Petitioner’s
allegations as constituting a pro se complaint, it lacked ju-
risdiction over her additional claims. App. 10–11, 14. The
court also affirmed the Special Master’s denial of Rogers’s
motion for recusal and his dismissal of Rogers’s claims.
App. 12–13.
Rogers timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursu-
ant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a ruling by the Claims Court on a
special master’s decision to grant or deny entitlement to
compensation under the Vaccine Act. Lampe v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(citing Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Hines v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 940 F.2d 1518, 1523–24 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The
Claims Court may only set aside a special master’s findings
of fact or conclusions of law if they are “arbitrary, capri-
cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B). Findings of fact
receive deferential review under an “arbitrary and capri-
cious” standard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo un-
der the “not in accordance with the law” standard, and
discretionary rulings are reviewed for “abuse of discretion.”
Munn v. Sec’y of Dep’t. of Health & Hum. Servs., 970 F.2d
863, 870 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We apply the same defer-
ence when reviewing the Claims Court’s judgment affirm-
ing that of a special master. Id. at 870.
Rogers argues that the Special Master erred in dis-
missing her appeal. Namely, she argues that Williams re-
ceived “three vaccines . . . without consent,” which she
identifies as “Fluvaril Remdesivir and Pnemonvax.” Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. at 1. She argues that the Secretary
“could not prove [that Williams] was not given vaccines.”
Id. The Secretary responds that (1) there is no such thing
as a “Remdesivir” vaccine, (2) it is undisputed that the
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

ROGERS v. HHS 5
Pnemovax vaccine is a pneumococcal polysaccharide vac-
cine not covered by the Vaccine Act, and (3) Rogers’s argu-
ments regarding the influenza vaccine amount to little
more than a request to reweigh the evidence. Appellee’s
Br. at 14–15.
We agree with the Secretary. Remdesivir is not a vac-
cine, but rather an antiviral treatment for COVID-19, so
even if Williams had received it, it would not be covered by
the Vaccine Program. Rogers also made no allegations re-
garding Remdesivir before the Special Master or the
Claims Court. It is further clear that, even though the rec-
ord supports that Williams received a pneumococcal poly-
saccharide vaccine, such vaccine was explicitly excluded
from the Vaccine Program, and it therefore does not entitle
the appellant to compensation. National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program: Addition of Pneumococcal Conju-
gate Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 66 Fed. Reg. at
28166 (“[P]olysaccharide-type pneumococcal vaccines are
not covered under the VICP or included on the Table.”).
With regard to the alleged influenza vaccine, Rogers ap-
pears to argue that the Special Master applied the incor-
rect legal standard in analyzing her claims by arguing that
he failed to consider that the Secretary “could not prove
[Williams] was not given” the influenza vaccine. Appel-
lant’s Informal Br. at 1. We disagree. It was Rogers’s bur-
den to prove receipt of a vaccine by a preponderance of the
evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1), -13(a)(1)(A);
Moberly ex rel. Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
592 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Special Master
therefore reached his determination that Rogers had not
met her burden in accordance with the law.
And, regardless, the Special Master did determine that
the evidence showed “that the [influenza] vaccine was not
administered.” Decision at *3. As the Special Master
found, the record evidence not only failed to show that Wil-
liams received an influenza vaccine, but it affirmatively
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

ROGERS v. HHS 6
showed that Williams did not receive an influenza vaccine.
See, e.g., id. (citing App. 243). The Special Master’s conclu-
sion that Williams did not receive an influenza vaccine dur-
ing her February 2022 hospital stay was therefore not
arbitrary or capricious. It is within a special master’s dis-
cretion to weigh evidence, and “reversible error is ‘ex-
tremely difficult to demonstrate’” unless the special master
failed to consider the relevant evidence of record, drew im-
plausible inferences, or failed to provide a rational basis for
the decision. Lampe, 219 F.3d at 1360 (citation omitted);
see also Munn, 970 F.2d at 870 (noting that the arbitrary
and capricious standard is “well understood to be the most
deferential possible”). The Special Master’s decision shows
that he thoughtfully considered the relevant evidence in
accordance with the law and reached a rational conclusion
supported by the record.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Rogers’s remaining arguments but
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm the judgment of the Claims Court.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-2176 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 6 of 6 --