VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01913
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01913
Petitioner: Reva Sims
Filed: 2017-12-08
Decided: 2019-05-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-08
Condition: left shoulder injury
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Reva Sims filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 8, 2017, alleging she developed a left shoulder injury as a result of an influenza vaccination received on October 8, 2015. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that Ms. Sims had not satisfied her burden of proof, noting she did not appear to have suffered residual effects for more than six months post-vaccination and failed to establish causation-in-fact. The court granted Ms. Sims' request for an extension to obtain an expert report. However, Ms. Sims subsequently filed a motion to dismiss her own claim, stating she was unable to secure evidence to prove entitlement to compensation. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine, and that the petition must be supported by medical records or expert opinion. As there was insufficient evidence in the record for Ms. Sims to meet her burden of proof, her claim could not succeed. Therefore, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01913-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-05-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (aa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01913-UNJ Document 32 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1913V
(Unpublished)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REVA SIMS, *
* Special Master Oler
Petitioner, * Filed: March 25, 2019
v. *
* Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Act.
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black, McLaren, Jones, Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN,
for Petitioner.
Ashley M. Simpson, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF1
On December 8, 2017, Reva Sims (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging that she developed a left shoulder
injury as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination that she received on October 8, 2015.3
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 Decision in its present form will be available. 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).
3 This case was initially assigned to Special Master Roth on December 8, 2017 (ECF No. 4), and then
reassigned to my docket on June 8, 2018 (ECF No. 15).

Case 1:17-vv-01913-UNJ Document 32 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 2
Petition (“Pet.”) at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed her statement of completion on December 12,
2017. ECF No. 8.
On November 19, 2018, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 22. Respondent
stated that Petitioner had not satisfied her burden of proof, specifically noting that she did not
appear to have suffered any residual effects for more than six months after vaccination and failed
to establish causation-in-fact. Id. at 6-8. Respondent concluded that “this case is not appropriate
for compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 10.
On November 20, 2018, I asked Petitioner to file a status report indicating how she would
like to proceed, considering Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Petitioner filed a status report
requesting time to obtain an expert report on December 19, 2018. ECF No. 23. On February 19,
2019, I granted Petitioner’s motion for an extension to obtain an expert report until April 19, 2019.
ECF No. 24. Petitioner has not filed an expert report in this case.
On March 20, 2019, Petitioner filed the present motion to dismiss her claim, indicating that
“[she] has been unable to secure evidence to prove entitlement to compensation in the [V]accine
[P]rogram.” See Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing the Petition, ECF No. 25.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a
petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the
petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical
expert. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for
Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and in
accordance with her motion, must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
2