VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00309
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00309
Petitioner: Joseph Zulaski
Filed: 2018-02-28
Decided: 2020-05-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-11-01
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Joseph Zulaski filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 28, 2018, alleging he suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on November 1, 2016. The public decision does not describe the petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel. On March 30, 2020, Mr. Zulaski filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, acknowledging that he lacked sufficient evidence to prove his claim. He stated that his immunization record did not indicate the route and site of the flu vaccination, and he was unable to prove whether he received an intradermal or intramuscular injection. Mr. Zulaski understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against him and end all his rights in the Vaccine Program. To receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a covered vaccine. The record did not disclose evidence of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record did not contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The public decision does not describe the specific clinical story, onset, symptoms, tests, or treatments. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the record did not contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner was injured by a vaccine. Consequently, Mr. Zulaski's claim for compensation was denied, and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Joseph Zulaski alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on November 1, 2016. The petition was dismissed upon petitioner's motion due to insufficient evidence. Petitioner could not demonstrate the route and site of vaccination (intradermal vs. intramuscular) and lacked medical records or expert opinion to establish vaccine causation. The public decision does not name experts or describe a specific mechanism of injury. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied the claim and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, resulting in a judgment against the petitioner. Attorneys named: Jeffrey S. Pop for Petitioner, Lara Ann Englund for Respondent. Decision Date: May 4, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00309-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/03/2020) regarding 38 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00309-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0309V
Filed: April 3, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
JOSEPH ZULASKI,
Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
Petitioner, Dismissing Petition; Influenza (Flu)
v. Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial
HUMAN SERVICES, Without Hearing; Special Processing
Unit (SPU)
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION 1
Corcoran, Chief Special Master:
On February 28, 2018, Joseph Zulaski 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 he suffered left Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine he received on November 1, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 7, 20. 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 1:18-vv-00309-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 2
On March 30, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition,
acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
compensation. (ECF 37). Petitioner acknowledges in his motion that his
“immunization record does not indicate the route and site of the flu vaccination
administered on November 1, 2016.” Id. at ¶ 1. Specifically, he indicated that he is
unable to prove whether he received an intradermal or intramuscular flu injection. Id. at
¶ 2. Petitioner further indicated that he “understands that a Decision by the Chief
Special Master dismissing his Petition will result in a Judgment against him.
[Petitioner] has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the
Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶ 7.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that he 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/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master