VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00008
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00008
Petitioner: Patricia Puccio
Filed: 2024-12-05
Decided: 2025-01-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-01-07
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Puccio filed a petition alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on January 7, 2017. She submitted an expert report from Dr. Daniel Trahant supporting her claim of left subacromial bursitis and rotator cuff impingement syndrome. The respondent contested entitlement, arguing that Ms. Puccio failed to demonstrate the injury persisted for more than six months, that onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and that she failed to prove causation-in-fact. The court noted that Ms. Puccio had not provided sufficient proof, including medical records or affidavits, to substantiate her claim of a six-month residual effect, nor had she met the onset requirement. Furthermore, Ms. Puccio failed to prosecute her case, disregarding multiple court orders to provide updates on settlement discussions and respond to a Show Cause Order. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. The petition was filed on December 5, 2024, and the decision was issued on January 6, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00008-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-06
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/05/2024) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-008V
PATRICIA PUCCIO,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: December 5, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Matthew Benjamin Moreland, Jim S. Hall & Associates, Metairie, LA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On January 3, 2020, Patricia C. Puccio filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
January 7, 2017. Petition at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Petitioner has filed an expert report in support of the claim from Dr. Daniel Trahant,
who opines that her development of left subacromial bursitis and rotator cuff impingement
syndrome were due to the relevant vaccination (and the area in which it was given). Ex.
5 at 2.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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).
This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that the
identified material fits within this definition, I 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 4
On December 6, 2021, Respondent filed his report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c)
contesting entitlement. Respondent’s Report, ECF No. 24. Respondent argued that
Petitioner failed to show that the onset of her shoulder pain began within 48-hours of
vaccination and that she failed to show that she suffered six months of residual effects
from her alleged injury, as required by the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5-6. Respondent also stated
that Petitioner failed to prove causation-in-fact. Id. at 6.
On December 14, 2021, I issued a Scheduling Order after reviewing the records
in this case, including Petitioner’s expert report and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. ECF
No. 35. I strongly encouraged the parties to attempt to informally resolve this case and to
file a status report with an update. Since that time, however, there have been no updates
on the status of settlement discussions. Additional scheduling orders were issued on
February 8, 2022, and September 21, 2022, for Petitioner to file an update regarding the
status of settlement discussions. On April 7, 2023, I filed an Order to Show Cause stating
that the petition would be dismissed if Petitioner failed to respond. ECF No. 26. To date,
Petitioner has not complied with these orders and there has been no further docket activity
on this case since 2021, besides the Scheduling, Status Report and Show Cause Orders
that I have issued.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petition for compensation must contain “supporting
documentation, demonstrating that the person who suffered [a vaccine related injury]
...suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury, or
condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i). The burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the persistence of a vaccine-caused injury for longer than six months. Song v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65–66, aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520
(Fed.Cir.1994). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through her self-assertion. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical
records or by the opinion of a competent physician. See Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner bears
the burden of proving a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. Section
13(a)(1)(A); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 592 F.3d 1315, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
Respondent has challenged the six-month severity requirement arguing that the
12-month treatment gap from approximately three months to 15 months post-vaccination
show that Petitioner’s initial symptoms resolved. Respondent’s Report at 6. Respondent
has also challenged the Table SIRVA claim based on Petitioner’s failure to prove onset
and has challenged the causation claim. I directed the parties to attempt to informally
resolve this case. However, Ms. Puccio has failed to contact Respondent to discuss
settlement, and has failed to further support her claim with sufficient proof, including
medical records, affidavits, and/or the opinion of a medical expert to substantiate her
2

Case 1:20-vv-00008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 4
claim that her injury persisted for more than six months. Petitioner has also failed to prove
that she has met the onset requirement, and despite multiple orders directing her to file
this information, her expert’s report does not establish causation.
An additional ground for dismissal herein arises from Petitioner’s general failure to
prosecute this matter. It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and respond to orders issued
by a special master in a case. The failure to do so – whether on account of attorney error,
inaction, or because a petitioner has failed to stay in contact and/or communicate with
counsel - is grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam),
(“[c]ontrolling precedent considers dismissal appropriate when failure to act is deemed
willful, when it is in violation of court orders, when it is repeated, and when clear warning
is given that the sanction will be imposed”); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996) (“[n]ot only did petitioner fail to meet the court's . . . . deadline, but
he also ignored the chief special master's ‘warning’ order, clearly placing petitioner on
notice that failure to respond to the court's order . . . , would result in dismissal of the
claim. The chief special master clearly did not abuse his discretion in dismissing this case
for failure to prosecute”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b) (“[t]he special master or the court
may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of the petitioner to prosecute or
comply with these rules or any order of the special master or the court.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in the April 7, 2023 Order to Show Cause, and
in my previous September 21, 2022 Scheduling Order that she risked dismissal of the
claim. I ultimately set a final deadline to act by May 19, 2023. But Petitioner continued to
disregard my orders without justification or explanation.
Conclusion
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide
preponderant evidence that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than
six months or suffered an in hospital surgical intervention. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). She has
also failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause issued on April 7, 2023. Accordingly,
this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court
shall enter judgment accordingly. 3
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00008-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/06/25 Page 4 of 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4