VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00453
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00453
Petitioner: Linda D. Kooker
Filed: 2018-03-28
Decided: 2019-10-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-02
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Linda D. Kooker filed a petition on March 28, 2018, alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on December 2, 2016. The Special Master's decision notes that the information in the record does not establish entitlement to compensation. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, stating that after a full investigation, she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. Respondent did not oppose the motion. The Special Master granted the motion, dismissing the case for insufficient proof. The decision explained that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table injury or that the injury was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine, supported by medical records or expert opinion. In this case, the public decision states that petitioner did not allege a Table injury and did not provide sufficient medical records or expert opinions to support a finding of entitlement for an off-Table injury. Petitioner's counsel was Laurie C. TeWinkle, and respondent's counsel was Robert C. Coleman. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen issued the decision on October 29, 2019, dismissing the case.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Linda D. Kooker filed a petition on March 28, 2018, alleging a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on December 2, 2016. The public decision states the record did not establish entitlement. Petitioner later moved to dismiss, acknowledging an inability to prove entitlement after investigation. Respondent did not oppose. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen granted the motion and dismissed the case for insufficient proof on October 29, 2019. The decision noted that entitlement requires proof of a Table injury or a vaccine-caused injury, supported by medical records or expert opinion. Petitioner did not allege a Table injury and did not provide sufficient medical records or expert opinions for an off-Table injury. Petitioner's counsel was Laurie C. TeWinkle; respondent's counsel was Robert C. Coleman. No specific medical mechanism, expert names, or award details were provided in the public text.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00453-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-10-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/02/2019) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00453-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/29/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: October 2, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINDA D. KOOKER , * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 18-453V
*
v. *
* Special Master Gowen
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Motion for Dismissal Decision;
* Influenza (“flu”); Shoulder Injury
Respondent. * Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laurie C. TeWinkle, Law Offices of L.C. TeWinkle, LLC, Erie, PA, for petitioner
Robert C. Coleman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION1
On March 28, 2018, Linda Kooker (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an
influenza vaccine on December 2, 2016. Petition at Preamble. The information in the record
does not establish entitlement to compensation.
On October 2, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition
pursuant to Rule 21(a). Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet. Mot.”) (ECF No. 33). Petitioner avers that an
investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated that after a full
investigation she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine
Program. Id. at ¶ 1. Petitioner recognizes that to proceed further would be unreasonable and
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 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-00453-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/29/19 Page 2 of 2
would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent and the Vaccine program. Id. at ¶ 2.
Petitioner understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in
a judgment that will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner
understands that she may apply for fees and costs once the case is dismissed and judgment is
entered against her. Id. at ¶ 4. Respondent expressly reserves the right to question the good faith
and reasonable basis of this claim and to oppose, if appropriate, petitioner’s application for fees
and costs. Id. Respondent otherwise does not oppose this motion. Petitioner intends to protect
her rights to file a civil action in the future. Therefore, pursuant to § 300aa-21(a)(2), petitioner
intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment and elect to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5.
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner has the burden of proving
either: (1) that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e. an injury beginning with a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that petitioner suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may
not award compensation based on petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, petitioner must support the
claim with either medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. §13(a)(1). In
this case, petitioner has not alleged nor does the record reflect a Table injury. With regard to an
off-Table injury, petitioner has not provided sufficient medical records or expert opinion(s)
which support a finding of entitlement. Accordingly, petitioner has not met her burden of proof.
Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient
proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).
2