G. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17-743

Petitioner M.G. (pro se) filed a Vaccine Act claim (filed June 6, 2017) alleging DTaP, Hep B, Rotavirus, Hib, PCV13, and IPV given May–July 2014 caused rapid head growth, macrocephaly, and global developmental delay in his son J.M.G.
Contemporaneous records/ imaging (head ultrasounds, brain MRI) showed enlarged extra-axial CSF spaces consistent with benign/familial external hydrocephalus; treating neurologist (Dr. Cokely) suspected a genetic etiology; no imaging evidence of parenchymal injury or documented acute post‑vaccine encephalopathy.
Petitioner submitted two experts: Cathy Buckley, Ph.D. (no CV, non‑MD) alleging aluminum adjuvants produced CNS inflammation; Dr. Karen Harum, M.D., opining vaccine‑triggered inflammation/vasculitis impaired CSF absorption and caused high‑pressure hydrocephalus and ischemic white‑matter injury.
Respondent rebutted with Dr. Peter Bingham (pediatric neurologist) and Dr. Joseph Blattman (immunologist), who found familial/benign external hydrocephalus and no reliable evidence that vaccines or alum caused CNS inflammation or J.M.G.’s developmental issues.
Procedurally, petitioner failed to produce updated neurologic records or an adequate supplemental expert despite repeated extensions and an Order to Show Cause; motions to recuse and to vacate/defer deadlines were denied; the special master dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute and, alternatively, on the merits for insufficient proof after applying the Althen test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal for failure to prosecute / extensions	COVID and family deaths prevented timely record/expert production; prior extensions create estoppel	Petitioner had two years and multiple extensions; no updated records or adequate expert; further delay unjustified	Case dismissed for failure to prosecute; extension/vacatur denied
Motion to recuse special master	Alleged bias and unfair conduct at Rule 5/status conference	Respondent took no position; argued motions meritless	Recusal denied under extrajudicial‑source and Liteky standards
Althen Prong 1 — medical theory (can vaccine cause injury?)	Alum adjuvants trigger microglial activation, CNS inflammation, vasculitis → impaired CSF absorption → hydrocephalus and developmental injury	Theory speculative, unsupported in the medical literature, and not tied to J.M.G.’s records; Buckley not an MD; no reliable evidence linking vaccines to hydrocephalus	Prong 1 not satisfied; petitioner’s experts found conclusory and unpersuasive
Althen Prongs 2 & 3 — logical sequence and timing	Temporal acceleration of head growth after 2‑ and 4‑month vaccines supports causation	Clinical course, imaging, and family history support benign/familial external hydrocephalus; no evidence of acute inflammatory injury or medically acceptable timing linking vaccines to the alleged injury	Prongs 2 and 3 not satisfied; entitlement denied

Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three‑prong causation framework for off‑Table vaccine claims)
Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard; possibility is insufficient)
Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d 543 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reject conclusory expert opinions)
Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 195 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (experts must have objective scientific basis)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily are not grounds for recusal absent extrajudicial source or deep‑seated bias)
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) (extrajudicial‑source doctrine for disqualification)
Charron v. United States, 200 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (criticisms of counsel within the litigation do not generally warrant recusal)
de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Althen prong three requires medically acceptable temporal relationship)
Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (medical records/treating‑physician evidence weigh heavily in Althen analysis)
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (credibility of experts and persuasiveness of competing theories govern special master decisions)