In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1454V 

(Not to be Published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

LEROY ALBERT WEINREICH, * Special Master Corcoran 

 * 

 * Filed: October 12, 2016 

 Petitioner, * 

 v. * Rule 21(a); No Judgment; Order 

 * Concluding proceedings. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. * 

 *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

William Nelson Butler, Butler, Melfa and Taylor, PA, Towson, MD, for Petitioner. 

Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent. 

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On December 2, 2015, Leroy Albert Weinreich filed a petition seeking compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 The Petition alleges that the trivalent 

influenza (“flu”) vaccine that Petitioner received on December 11, 2012, caused him to develop 

Guillain Barré Syndrome. See Petition (“Pet.”) at 1.

 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As 

provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain 

kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which 

to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial 

in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will 

be available to the public. Id. 

2

 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). 
2

Petitioner filed his statement of completion on March 4, 2016, and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report was subsequently filed on June 7, 2016. Petitioner was then instructed to file his expert 

report. Although the due date was originally August 12, 2016, Petitioner moved for two extensions 

of time and the deadline was extended to September 23, 2016. After missing that deadline, and 

failing to file a motion for an extension of time, I issued an order on October 4, 2016, stating that 

the overdue expert report be filed immediately (ECF No.15). Petitioner did not respond so I issued 

an order to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed on October 11, 2016 (ECF No. 16). 

That same day, a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was filed (ECF No. 17), pursuant 

to Vaccine Rule 21(a). 

 Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3), the above-captioned case is hereby 

ordered concluded. The Clerk of the Court is instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant 

case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master