Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
Date FiledAugust 26, 2026
Docket25-1775V
JudgeChristian J. Moran
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
*************************
EDWARD TORRES, *
* No. 25-1775V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: August 3, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*************************
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner;
Mallori Browne Openchowski, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION 1
Petitioner, Edward Torres, filed a petition for compensation on October 21,
2025, alleging that the pneumococcal conjugate (“Prevnar 20”) vaccine he
received on May 25, 2024, caused him to suffer from Guillain-Barré syndrome
(“GBS”). On July 31, 2026, Mr. Torres filed a motion for a decision dismissing
his petition,
1
Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken 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), the parties have 14
days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted
on the website.
I. Procedural History
Mr. Torres filed his petition on October 21, 2025, alleging that the Prevnar
20 vaccine he received on May 25, 2024, caused him to suffer from GBS. After
filing medical records, Mr. Torres filed a statement of completion on November
20, 2025.
The case was reassigned to the undersigned on January 16, 2026. On April
29, 2026, the undersigned issued an order advising of a recent decision denying
compensation for a claim that the Prevnar-13 vaccine caused a petitioner to suffer
from GBS. Romine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-468V, 2026 WL
937898 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 13, 2026). It was also noted that the Federal
Circuit held that it was not arbitrary or capricious for a special master to deny
entitlement in a Prevnar-GBS case even though other special masters have granted
entitlement in cases with similar facts and evidence. Gamboa-Avila v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 166 F.4th 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2026). Mr. Torres was instructed
to review Romine and to file a status report explaining whether he anticipated
filing evidence that (1) differed from the evidence in Romine, and (2) would
potentially lead to a different result. The deadline for Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report was suspended.
Mr. Torres filed a status report on May 29, 2026, detailing consultations
with experts and the experts’ proposed theories and literature. A status conference
was held on June 16, 2026. The Secretary raised potential concerns regarding the
GBS diagnosis, noting references to CIDP in the medical records. Mr. Torres
anticipated filing an amended petition and expert reports. A deadline was set for
both parties’ expert reports and the Rule 4(c) Report. However, Mr. Torres was
also advised that he seemed unlikely to receive compensation, and reminded that
even if a claim is found to be supported by reasonable basis and good faith, special
masters retain discretion not to award attorneys’ fees and costs. Order, issued June
16, 2026 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–15(e); James-Cornelius v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“even when [good faith and
reasonable basis] are satisfied, a special master retains discretion to grant or deny
attorneys’ fees”); Wirtshafter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 155 Fed. Cl. 665,
675-76 (2021) (after determining that reasonable basis supported petitioner’s claim
as a matter of law, remanding for special master to determine whether to exercise
discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs)). Additionally, concerns
were raised about the credibility of one of the experts.
2
On July 31, 2026, Mr. Torres filed a motion to dismiss his petition. Mr.
Torres states that his treating physician has confirmed that the most probable
diagnosis for Mr. Torres is CIDP. One of Mr. Torres’s experts could not apply her
previous opinion to a CIDP diagnosis. Given the concerns about the other expert’s
credibility, Mr. Torres decided not to move forward with submitting an expert
report and instead filed the motion to dismiss.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Mr. Torres filed medical records in support of his claim, but he
did not file an expert report. Mr. Torres instead wishes to have his claim
dismissed. Given Mr. Torres’s clear intent that a judgment issue in this case, the
undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” Here, Mr. Torres did not file an expert report to support his
claim that the May 2024 vaccination caused him to suffer from GBS. Therefore,
there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of vaccine-causation.
Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient
proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
3