VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01445
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01445
Petitioner: Jeremy Adams
Filed: 2019-09-20
Decided: 2025-09-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-03
Condition: right shoulder skin abscess associated with bacterial infection
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 20, 2019, Jeremy Adams filed a petition seeking compensation for an abscess injury after an influenza vaccination administered on October 3, 2018, when he was 38 years old. His case belonged to a group of claims involving a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity whose vaccine-safety practices were later criticized in related litigation.

Mr. Adams alleged that sometime after vaccination he developed right shoulder pain and then redness, swelling, and drainage at the injection site. By January 2019 he was treated for a right lateral deltoid skin abscess associated with bacterial infection, underwent an open debridement, received antibiotics, and followed with infectious-disease care while the wound gradually improved. The public ruling notes that later records did not document continuing pain, numbness, or functional loss, but Mr. Adams submitted a photograph showing a residual scar.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran applied the causation ruling from the related Silvers test case, which had found that the same vaccination setting caused a right shoulder bacterial abscess. He granted entitlement on July 22, 2025, finding that the scar was enough to satisfy the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement, even though any damages award was likely to be modest.

Before damages were resolved, Mr. Adams moved to dismiss his own claim. His counsel represented that he expected the Program award would not match the amount he believed appropriate and that he intended to reject the resulting judgment and pursue a civil action. On September 30, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the petition with prejudice. No Vaccine Program compensation was awarded. Mr. Adams was represented by John J. Patterson of Luxon, Patterson & Himes, PLLC.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 3, 2018, age 38, alleged right shoulder skin abscess associated with bacterial infection after vaccination by a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity later found to have inadequate vaccine safety controls. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED July 22, 2025 as an off-Table caused-in-fact abscess claim; DISMISSED with prejudice September 30, 2025 at petitioner's request before damages. Key evidence: comparable Silvers test-case causation ruling, January 2019 swelling/drainage and debridement, antibiotics/infectious-disease care, and residual scar photograph sufficient for six-month severity. Award: none; petitioner planned to reject judgment and preserve civil-action rights. Chief Special Master Corcoran. Attorney John J. Patterson; respondent Tyler King.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01445-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-19
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/22/2025) regarding 53 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1445V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JEREMY ADAMS, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner * Filed: July 22, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 20, 2019, Jeremy Adams filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that
an influenza vaccine he received on October 3, 2018, caused “adverse effects,” including
“symptoms of pain and abscesses.” See generally Petition (ECF No. 1). The vaccine he received
was administered by a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity that was later determined to have
exercised inadequate safety control over its vaccines, resulting in numerous vaccinated individuals
experiencing comparable abscess injuries.
Respondent opposes Petitioner's claim, arguing that the Act's “severity” requirement
cannot be met. After a careful review of the entirety of the parties’ submissions, however, I find
there is preponderant evidence that the alleged injury persisted for at least six months post-
vaccination. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D).
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 Ruling will be available to the public in
its present form. 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).

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 2 of 6
I. Relevant Procedural History
This matter was initiated at the same time as a number of related petitions brought by
similarly-situated claimants.3 Respondent raised an overarching objection to these claims—that
they did not fall within the ambit of the Program due to third-party negligence that resulted in the
subsequent abscess injuries. The parties consented to resolution of entitlement in one “test case,”
the results of which could then be applied to the related cases. On April 25, 2024, I ruled in favor
of the petitioner in the test case, finding that the administration of the influenza vaccine had caused
him to experience a right shoulder skin abscess associated with a bacterial infection. See Silvers v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1V, 2024 WL 2799285 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25,
2024).
On September 17, 2024, I held a telephonic status conference (under the auspices of the
test case matter) to discuss the remaining cases. I proposed at that time that Respondent evaluate
the related matters and determine if entitlement could be conceded in light of my ruling, or if facts
specific to the remaining cases required different treatment. I later ordered the parties in the fall of
2024 to resolve damages, or to propose a briefing schedule for their dispute. After some delay,
Petitioner filed a motion for ruling on the record in this matter. See Motion, dated May 16, 2025
(ECF No. 49) (“Mot.”). Respondent opposed it (combining his brief with a Rule 4(c) Report) on
June 26, 2025, arguing therein that the Act’s six-month severity requirement could not be met.
(ECF No. 51 (“Opp.”)). Petitioner filed a reply in further support of his motion, appending to it
some additional evidence that he purports supports severity. Reply, dated July 2, 2025 (ECF No.
52) (“Reply”). The matter is now ripe for decision.
II. Factual Background
Petitioner was 38 years old at the time of vaccination, and received the vaccine in issue on
October 3, 2018, from the same mobile vaccination entity discussed in Silvers. Ex. 10 at 1–2.
Petitioner has alleged that “sometime following the administration” of the vaccine he began to
experience shoulder pain. Affidavit, dated Oct. 7, 2019, filed as Ex. 10 (ECF No. 25-3).
On January 4, 2019 (approximately three months after vaccination), Petitioner saw Dr.
James Rollins, reporting approximately six weeks of redness at the injection site plus swelling with
drainage. Ex. 1 at 18. Dr. Rollins assessed Petitioner with “injection with contaminated needle
3 See generally Silvers v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., No. 20-1V, 2024 WL 2799285 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 25, 2024); Lykins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1444V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., filed Sept. 19, 2019);
Thomas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1443V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., filed Sept. 19, 2019); Mynhier v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1441 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., filed Sept. 19, 2019); Helton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 19-1440 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., filed Sept. 19, 2019). Silvers involved different counsel (who
represented a different group of petitioners), but raised the same causation theory, and counsel in this matter
agreed to be bound by the Silvers determination.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 3 of 6
right lateral deltoid,” and “skin abscess of right arm.” Id. at 20. It was proposed that a culture be
taken, and that Petitioner’s arm be monitored for signs of infection. Id.
On January 8, 2019, Petitioner underwent an open debridement of his right arm. Ex. 1 at
13. He then followed up with Dr. Rollins on January 11, 2019. Id. At that time, Petitioner’s arm
felt sore, but he reported otherwise doing well. Id. The plan was to keep his arm elevated, apply
ice periodically, and to change the dressing, and Petitioner was prescribed an antibiotic for
infections. Id. at 15.
Mr. Adams was seen again that same month, by Dr. Rollins and then by an infectious
disease specialist. Ex. 1 at 9, Ex. 8 at 34–38. During this timeframe, Petitioner reported some arm
pain associated with wound care, but no drainage or evidence of further infection. Ex. 1 at 11. The
sutures were removed, and Petitioner was advised to pursue home care. Id. He did, however,
display some evidence of residual inflammation, and was prescribed additional medication for an
intended course of one to three months, depending on the clinical response. Ex. 8 at 34–38. By the
end of January 2019, other than some bloody drainage Petitioner’s wound had grown smaller, and
the medications he was receiving were helping despite residual arm redness. Ex. 1 at 5, Ex. 8 at
25–30.
Petitioner’s improvement continued on into February. Ex. 8 at 13–18, Ex. 1 at 2. On
February 28, 2019, now over four months post vaccination, he had a follow-up visit with the
infection specialist. Ex. 8 at 1–5. Although he was at this time still on medication, the wound no
longer required packing, and he denied any arm issues like numbness and tingling. Id. It was
proposed, however, that he remain on medication through mid-April. It has not been established
on this record that Petitioner in fact took a full course of the medicine prescribed, although
Petitioner alleges that he continued to take the medications through June 2019. Mot. at 1.
On April 22, 2019, Mr. Adams was examined by an internist for unrelated concerns (and
he did not at this time mention his vaccine-related abscess or any sequelae of it—although it was
listed as an “active problem”). Ex. 2 at 65–68. The following month, he underwent a lumbar fusion
procedure, attending several post-operative treater visits thereafter. Ex. 2 at 1–24. He was also
treated throughout 2019 for congestive heart failure. Id. at 28–114; But none of these records
mention his previous arm abscess. No further records regarding Petitioner’s treatment in the time
period afterward have been filed.
III. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner claims that he experienced residual effects and/or complications for more than
six months after the administration of the vaccine. Mot. at 2. In particular, he emphasizes both the
medication he was prescribed (which he allegedly continued to receive more than six months from
3

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 4 of 6
onset), as well as the “permanent and very noticeable” scarring he has incurred. Id. at 1–2. In a
reply, Petitioner has offered some photographic evidence to support his severity contentions. In
particular, he has filed a photo of his scar from the abscess, representing that it depicts the scar’s
“current state.” Affidavit, dated July 3, 2025, filed as ECF No. 52-1; Photograph (filed as ECF No.
52-3). The photo is undated, however, and Petitioner has not provided any specific statement as to
when it was taken, or otherwise offered any details as to its authenticity.
Respondent maintains that Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory “severity” requirement
for his vaccine injury, by demonstrating that sequelae from his abscess persisted at least through
April 2019 (assuming an immediate onset at the time of vaccination). Opp. at 6, 7. Although
Petitioner’s initial affidavit purports that his injury persisted this long, Respondent argues that this
does nothing to advance his claim. Id. at 4. To support this, Respondent cites Hanna v. Sec’y of
Health and Hum. Servs., No. 18-1455V, 2021 WL 3486248, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15,
2021), which states that affidavits “specifically drafted for use in prosecution of petitioner’s claim”
are less reliable than “[c]ontemporaneous records prepared independently of litigation.”
Instead, the record in this case demonstrates only abscess-specific treatment through late
February. And by that time, Petitioner’s abscess scar was only a “small, scabbed, lesion without
redness.” Opp. at 6 (citing Ex 8 at 1–8). Treatment thereafter was for unrelated health issues. And
onset could have been as late as December 2018 (see Ex. 9 at 1)—in which case severity would
need to have been established through June 2019, but records do not support that conclusion. Opp.
at 6. (Respondent also argued that Petitioner had not filed any images of his shoulder, although
Petitioner did so on reply).
IV. Statutory Severity Requirement
The petitioner carries the burden of establishing the matters required in the petition by a
preponderance of the evidence. §13(a)(1)(A). One such requirement is “documentation
demonstrating severity—generally, that the petitioner “suffered the residual effects or
complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than 6
months after the administration of the vaccine.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(i)9; see also Black v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the “potential petitioner” must not
only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional threshold, by “submitting supporting
documentation which reasonably demonstrates that a special master has jurisdiction to hear the
merits of the case”), aff'd, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the availability of
the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from taking a vaccine.”
H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2313–1, 2313–373, cited in
4

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 5 of 6
Cloer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132
S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Act prohibits finding a petition requirement “based on the claims of a petitioner alone,
unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” §13(a)(1). Medical records must be
considered, see §13(b)(1), and are generally afforded substantial weight. Cucuras v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25, 1991), quoted with
approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226
(Fed.Cir.1992)). However, the Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption
that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient's physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
It is thus certainly the case that factual matters required to prove elements of a Vaccine Act
claim may be established by a mix of witness statements and record proof, with the special master
required to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and
reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed.
Cl. 184 (2013) (citing §12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8), aff'd, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
ANALYSIS
The medical records objectively preponderate in favor of a finding that Petitioner’s injury
persisted for more than six months post-vaccination. The primary item of evidence that resolves
this dispute in Petitioner’s favor is the photograph of the abscess scar itself, which appears to still
exist even though treatment of the abscess ended several years ago (and within the six-month
severity period). While there are some reasonable evidentiary questions about the authenticity of
this photo, I find that its submission (with an affidavit from Petitioner that the photo reflects his
shoulder as of the time of filing) is enough to preponderate in favor of a determination that it is
accurate and timely.
A scar left by a vaccine injury can constitute an injury sequela, as other special masters
have recognized. See, e.g., Skinner-Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1212V, 2023
WL 3043904, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 21, 2023) (deeming existence of residual scar tissue
“knot” due to resolved cellulitis as basis for at least a de minimis damages award); Yost v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-288V, 2022 WL 4593029, at *11–12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 29,
2022) (awarding damages for small permanent scar due to SIRVA). This is therefore sufficient to
meet the Act’s severity of requirement, since the photo allows for the conclusion that the scar
persists.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/19/25 Page 6 of 6
Here, Petitioner has not established any other sequela from the abscess scar, such as
ongoing tenderness or pain and hence no future award of pain and suffering would be tenable).
Indeed, the scar itself is a minimal, non-concerning (if unsightly) remnant of the abscess, which
this record reflects was easily and completely treated within six months of onset (whatever date
that might have been). Thus, whatever pain and suffering award Petitioner seeks in this case should
be fairly minimal (and consistent with what similarly-situated claimants have received in recent
related cases).
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence sufficient to meet the severity requirement
and is otherwise entitled to compensation. The parties shall file a Status Report on or before
Friday, August 15, 2025, setting forth their progress in resolving damages in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01445-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/30/2025) regarding 57 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ers) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 58 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1445V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JEREMY ADAMS, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: September 30, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John J. Patterson, Luxon, Patterson & Himes, PLLC, Richmond, KY, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On September 20, 2019, Jeremy Adams filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 3, 2018, caused “adverse effects,” including
“symptoms of pain and abscesses.” See generally Petition (ECF No. 1). After a careful review of
the entirety of the parties’ submissions, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement in favor of Petitioner. See
Ruling, dated July 22, 2025 (ECF No. 53).
I subsequently ordered the parties to attempt to resolve damages—but before that process
was completed, Petitioner’s counsel represented that Mr. Adams wished to file a motion to dismiss
his claim (apparently because he anticipated not being awarded the sum of damages he believes
appropriate for his injury), and such a motion has now been filed. See Motion, dated Sept. 25, 2025
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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
in its present form. 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) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:19-vv-01445-UNJ Document 58 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2
(ECF No. 56) (“Mot.”). The Motion confirms that Petitioner has been advised that a decision
dismissing the petition will be “with prejudice,” and result in a judgment against him, and that
such a judgment will end all his rights in the Vaccine Program with regard to this specific claim
arising from his October 3, 2018, flu vaccine. Mot. at 1. Petitioner intends to elect to reject the
judgment against him and instead elect to file a civil action. Id.
Under Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1), a petitioner may request a decision dismissing a petition,
even after preparation of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (and here, even after a favorable
entitlement decision). Under such circumstances, the decision will result in a judgment, although
the dismissal will be with prejudice (unless otherwise indicated). Rule 21(b)(1) and (2). Here, I
find such a decision appropriate. Petitioner has affirmatively represented that he prefers to no
longer proceed with his claim, despite the entitlement determination.
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS the Petition with prejudice. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2