VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00980
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00980
Petitioner: Daphne Lattimer
Filed: 2017-07-20
Decided: 2019-04-17
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-09-23
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Daphne Lattimer filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 20, 2017, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her influenza vaccination on September 23, 2015. The decision notes that the information in the record did not show entitlement to an award. On February 12, 2019, Ms. Lattimer moved for a decision dismissing her petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence existed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. She stated that an investigation of the facts and science supporting her case showed she would be unable to prove entitlement. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not disclose evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The decision emphasizes that compensation cannot be awarded based on claims alone, but must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion. As the record lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate Ms. Lattimer was injured by the vaccine, her claim for compensation was denied and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00980-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-04-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/21/2019) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00980-UNJ Document 34 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-0980V
Filed: February 21, 2019
Unpublished
DAPHNE LATTIMER,
Petitioner,
v. Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
Dismissing Petition; Influenza (“Flu”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccine Administration (SIRVA);
Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial
Respondent. Without Hearing; Special Processing
Unit (SPU)
Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Amy Paula Kokot, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 20, 2017, Daphne Lattimer (“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”).3 Petitioner alleges that she
suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her
September 23, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. The information in the
record does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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).
3 The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

Case 1:17-vv-00980-UNJ Document 34 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 2
On February 12, 2019, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition,
acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
compensation. (ECF No. 30). Petitioner indicated in her motion that “[a]n investigation
of the facts and science supporting her case have demonstrated to Petitioner that she
will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.”
Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioner further indicated that she “understands that a decision by the
Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgement against her. Petitioner
has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the vaccine
program.” Id. at ¶ 4.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the
record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further,
the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence
indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the
medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not
contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that petitioner
was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A),
petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED for
insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master