VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00448
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00448
Petitioner: Kevin Randall
Filed: 2018-03-27
Decided: 2020-02-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kevin Randall filed a petition for vaccine compensation on March 27, 2018, alleging that the influenza vaccine caused him to develop a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The record did not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner was required to prove either a "Table Injury" listed in the Vaccine Injury Table corresponding to his vaccination or that his injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record lacked persuasive evidence that petitioner's alleged injury was vaccine-caused or vaccine-related. Under the Act, petitions cannot be based solely on the petitioner's claims; they must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent physician. In this case, the petition lacked supporting medical records, and petitioner offered no medical opinion to support a finding of entitlement. Maximillian Muller, Esq., represented the petitioner, and Julia Collison, Esq., represented the respondent. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth issued a decision on January 14, 2020, dismissing the case for insufficient proof. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kevin Randall filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The Special Master's decision does not specify the vaccination date or the petitioner's age. To establish entitlement, the petitioner was required to prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record lacked evidence of a "Table Injury" and persuasive evidence that the injury was vaccine-caused or vaccine-related. The petition was not supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion, which are required under the Act when claims are not based solely on the petitioner's assertions. Petitioner Maximillian Muller, Esq., and respondent's counsel Julia Collison, Esq., were involved. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth dismissed the case on January 14, 2020, for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered accordingly. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00448-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-02-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/14/2020) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (km) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00448-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-448V
Filed: January 14, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KEVIN RANDALL, *
* Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
Petitioner, * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
* Administration (“SIRVA”)
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian Muller, Esq., Muller Brazil LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Julia Collison, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1
Roth, Special Master:
On March 27, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),2 alleging that the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine caused him to develop a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). The
information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On
January 13, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision requesting that his case be
dismissed. Motion, ECF No. 31.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision
will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:18-vv-00448-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2
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 his vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that
petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.
Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the petitioner’s
claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion
of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records
supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however,
has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination.
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
2