PUTNAM v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1923V
Filed: November 17, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARJORIE PUTNAM
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON ENTITLEMENT1
Shah, Special Master:
I. Procedural History
On September 28, 2021, Marjorie Putnam (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”). ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The petition alleges that Petitioner developed
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it must be made publicly
accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
Case 1:21-vv-01923-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) caused by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on or
around October 1, 2018. Id.
Two years after the petition was filed, the Chief Special Master issued an order to show
cause because Petitioner had not filed any supporting documentation. ECF No. 18. On August
11, 2023, Petitioner filed an affidavit and medical records, and on September 15, 2023, she filed a
response to the order to show cause. Exs. 1-35; ECF No. 22. Petitioner filed an amended petition
on April 22, 2024, alleging a Table claim of GBS following the flu vaccine she received on October
1, 2018. ECF No. 29 (“Am. Pet.”) at 1. Alternatively, Petitioner alleged that the flu vaccine was
the cause-in-fact of her injury. Id.
On July 29, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”) recommending that
entitlement be denied. Report at 2, 21 (ECF No. 33). This case was reassigned to me on August
14, 2024. ECF No. 34.
Petitioner filed a status report on December 23, 2024, stating that she did not plan to submit
any expert evidence and requesting a briefing schedule for a ruling on the record. ECF No. 39.
On January 15, 2025, I held a status conference via telephone with the parties. See ECF
No. 40. During the conference, Petitioner’s counsel stated that he had consulted an expert, who
reviewed the case and was ultimately unwilling to submit a report in support of the claim. Id. at
1. Petitioner’s counsel asked Petitioner if she would be willing to dismiss this case, but she was
unwilling to do so. Id. I informed the parties that, based on the record as it stood, I did not believe
Petitioner would prevail on either a Table flu/GBS claim or a causation-in-fact claim. Id. In
particular, the records indicated that Petitioner was never formally diagnosed with GBS; instead,
her physicians suspected chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), lumbar
radiculopathy, surgical complications, and/or other conditions. See Ex. 16 at 7; Ex. 14 at 6; Ex.
11 at 28; Ex. 19 at 17. Furthermore, the possibility of CIDP and/or GBS was not raised until long
after the vaccination, casting further doubt on issues such as onset, nadir of weakness, and
monophasic course. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(15). I encouraged further consideration of
voluntary dismissal of the case. ECF No. 40 at 1.
Following the status conference, I set deadlines for both parties to file briefing for a motion
for a ruling on the record. ECF No. 40. On January 21, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to suspend
the briefing schedule on the ground that she had received treatment from a new neurologist and
wanted to ascertain whether the results of that treatment would provide additional evidence in
support of her claim. ECF No. 43. Petitioner obtained the new medical records and retained a
neurologist to review her case. ECF No. 44-48. On September 17, 2025, Petitioner indicated that
she was “preparing a motion regarding the resolution of this case.” ECF No. 49. On November
14, 2025, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition under Vaccine Rule 21(b). ECF
No. 51.
II. Analysis
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may prevail in one of two ways. First, she may show
that she suffered a Table injury within the time provided in the Table. § 11(c)(1)(C)(i). “In such
Case 1:21-vv-01923-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
a case, causation is presumed.” Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320
(Fed. Cir. 2006); see § 13(a)(1)(B). Second, where the alleged injury is not listed in the Table, she
may demonstrate that she suffered an “off-Table” injury that was caused-in-fact by the vaccination.
§ 11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
Petitioner cannot establish entitlement to compensation based solely on her assertions;
rather, a vaccine claim must be supported either by “medical records or by medical opinion.” §
13(a)(1). The special master is required to consider “all [] relevant medical and scientific evidence
contained in the record,” including “any diagnosis, conclusion, medical judgment, or autopsy or
coroner’s report which is contained in the record regarding the nature, causation, and aggravation
of the petitioner’s illness, disability, injury, condition, or death,” as well as the “results of any
diagnostic or evaluative test which are contained in the record and the summaries and
conclusions.” §13(b)(1)(A). The special master is then required to weigh the evidence presented,
including contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 3 F. 3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (it is within the special master’s discretion to determine
whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records than to other evidence, such
as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that
such determination is based on a rational analysis).
Under Vaccine Rule 21(b), the special master or the court may 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). Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1). 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)(2).
Here, Petitioner moved for dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(b). ECF No. 51. Petitioner
noted that she “understands that a decision will issue pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3)
dismissing this case on terms that the special master or the court considers proper” and that “this
Motion will result in a final judgment dismissing [P]etitioner’s case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11.”
Id. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of
proof, as she has failed to support her claim with the requisite medical or expert evidence.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for a Dismissal Decision is hereby GRANTED, and the
petition is dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jennifer A. Shah
Jennifer A. Shah
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly
or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
Case 1:21-vv-01923-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3