VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00322
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00322
Petitioner: George Taylor
Filed: 2020-03-23
Decided: 2025-08-21
Vaccine: hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2019-07-02
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 23, 2020, George Taylor filed a petition alleging that a hepatitis A vaccination administered on July 2, 2019 caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. He was 54 years old at vaccination.

The case turned on whether the vaccine had actually been administered in the right arm. The record contained a vaccine document indicating left-deltoid administration, while Mr. Taylor alleged a right-sided injury. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a situs ruling finding the record did not support the right-arm administration necessary for a Table SIRVA claim. The court gave Mr. Taylor time to decide whether he could proceed with an off-Table causation-in-fact claim, which would have required additional proof and likely expert support.

After that opportunity, no adequate causation-in-fact theory was developed. On August 21, 2025, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. No compensation was awarded. Mr. Taylor was represented by David J. Carney.

Theory of causation field:
Hepatitis A vaccine on July 2, 2019, age 54, alleged right SIRVA. DISMISSED. The record contained a vaccine record showing left-deltoid administration while petitioner alleged right-sided injury. Chief Special Master Corcoran found petitioner had not proven right-arm situs for a Table SIRVA and had not developed a causation-in-fact theory with expert support after being given time to do so. No compensation. Decision August 21, 2025. Attorney: David J. Carney.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00322-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-24
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/18/2024) regarding 45 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Order to Show Cause, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-322V
GEORGE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 18, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FACT RULING ON SITUS1
On March 23, 2020, George Taylor filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Hepatitis A (“Hep A”) vaccine administered to
him on July 2, 2019. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1; Am. Pet., ECF No. 28. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 11
For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than not that Petitioner has
not established the alleged vaccine administration site. Therefore, his Table SIRVA claim
is not tenable and must be dismissed.3
I. Relevant Procedural History
After initiating his claim, Petitioner filed proof of vaccination (without identifying the
arm in which the subject vaccination was administered) and medical records, followed by
a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 6-9. In April 2020, Petitioner was ordered to submit
a vaccination record that includes the situs of vaccination. Non-PDF Order, docketed Apr.
7, 2020. Five months later, Petitioner submitted a status report detailing his unsuccessful
efforts in obtaining any additional vaccine administration records. ECF No. 15. This case
was then reassigned to the SPU. ECF No. 16.
In March 2021, Respondent filed a status report with his informal assessment of
the claim, identifying missing medical records and factual issues that may require
additional development or support in the record. ECF No. 24. Specifically, Respondent
reiterated that Petitioner did not file a complete vaccination record, including a notation
showing in which arm the subject vaccination was administered. Id. at 2. Respondent also
noted that it is “not clear” when Petitioner’s post-vaccination pain began, because when
he sought care at his primary care provider’s (“PCP”) office on August 2, 2019 (thirty days
post vaccination), he did not report right shoulder symptoms. Id. (citing Ex. 3 at 141-45).
Respondent otherwise did not identify any issues beyond what is normally addressed in
SPU. Id. at 2-3. On May 11, 2021, Petitioner filed outstanding medical records (including
a record of Petitioner’s subject vaccination depicting a handwritten, encircled, “left” arm
situs),4 witness affidavits regarding onset and situs, an amended petition, and a statement
of completion. ECF Nos. 26-28.
On November 29, 2021, Respondent filed a status report requesting to file a Rule
4(c) Report, and noting that he had not sought a demand from Petitioner. ECF No. 34.
That report was filed on January 24, 2022, and in it Respondent argued that Petitioner
had failed to show a Table injury because his medical records did not support the
conclusion that the onset of his pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination – in direct
conflict with his affidavit. Respondent’s Report at 6, ECF No. 36. Respondent also argued
that Petitioner’s vaccination record stated that the subject vaccination was administered
3 Although the parties submitted briefings on the issue of whether Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours
of vaccination and whether his limited range of motion could be explained by another condition or
abnormality, at this time, this Ruling is limited to a finding of fact regarding situs.
4 The handwritten circle notation is around the “left” injection site, while simultaneously encircling the “IM”
or intramuscular route of vaccine administration. See Ex. 8 at 2. This vaccination record was submitted in
response to a subpoena issued by Petitioner. See ECF No. 13.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 3 of 11
in the left arm, not the right as alleged. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 8 at 2). Petitioner’s vaccination
record thus failed to demonstrate that his pain and reduced range of motion (“ROM”) were
limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered. Id. Finally, Respondent
asserted that Petitioner’s MRI revealed another condition or abnormality (arthritis in the
acromioclavicular joint) that may explain his post-vaccination shoulder symptoms. Id. at
8 (citing Ex. 4 at 4-7).
Petitioner subsequently filed an additional medical record and a motion for a ruling
on the record regarding the issues raised in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report on September
12, 2022. ECF Nos. 38-39. On November 10, 2022, Respondent filed a response to
Petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 41. Petitioner filed a reply approximately one month later,
on December 7, 2022. ECF No. 43. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
II. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records may be
incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381,
391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies
between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s
failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant
time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything reported to her
or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4)
a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 4 of 11
2014). The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony
that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42
Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special
master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to
other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given
at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
III. Relevant Factual Evidence5
On July 2, 2019, Petitioner (then 54 years old) received a Hep A vaccine in his left
deltoid. Ex. 8 at 2. As noted above (and in the reproduction of the vaccine record below),
a handwritten circle is evident around both notations for situs (“left”) and route (“IM” –
intramuscular). See id.
5 I have reviewed all of the filings submitted by both parties to date. Only those facts relevant to situs will
be discussed herein, although other facts may be included as necessary.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 5 of 11
Nevertheless, Petitioner attests that he “watch[ed] the pharmacist administer the
vaccine into [his] right arm.” Ex. 2 ¶ 9. He specifically recalls that the vaccine was injected
“into the front portion of [his] right shoulder near the shoulder joint.” Id. ¶ 10. Upon
injection, he “immediately began bleeding and required several bandages” to stop the
bleeding. Id. By July 4, 2019, Petitioner was “still experiencing severe pain in [his] right
shoulder that was not subsiding or improving.” Id. ¶ 11. At that time, Petitioner states he
could not raise his right arm to dress, reach for items on shelves, or drive due to the
severe pain. Id. “Within the next week,” his pain “progressively worsened” (resulting in
difficulties with cooking, cleaning, bathing/shaving, and laundry) until he made an
appointment with his PCP to address such pain in August 2019. Id. ¶¶ 12-13.
One month post-vaccination, on August 2, 2019, Petitioner presented to his PCP
to follow-up on medications for pre-existing conditions, his type 2 diabetes, and to discuss
weight loss. Ex. 3 at 141. The visit notes for this encounter do not contain reports of
shoulder pain. See id. at 141-45. Petitioner contends, however, that during this visit, his
PCP “noted [Petitioner’s] limited ability to use [his] right shoulder and the severity of [his]
pain[.]” Ex. 2 ¶ 13. According to Petitioner, his PCP also referred him to an orthopedist at
that time. Id. While Petitioner relates this interaction to his August 2, 2019 PCP visit,
Petitioner, in fact, made such complaints during his September 13, 2019 PCP encounter.
The record in this case also establishes that approximately one month prior to
Petitioner’s September 13, 2019 PCP visit, on August 20, 2019, Petitioner requested his
medical records via Recordtrak. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 27-30. Specifically, he asked that his
records be sent to Recordtrak, “who are handling a legal matter for [Petitioner].” See id.
at 29; see also Ex. 9 at 3-4. It appears that Recordtrak ultimately provided Petitioner’s
counsel with the requested medical records. Ex. 4 at 1; Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 6 at 1. More so,
and also on August 20, 2019, Petitioner executed a medical records release form, which
authorized the disclosure of Petitioner’s medical records directly to his counsel. Ex. 8 at
6.
As previously noted, Petitioner returned to his PCP on September 13, 2019. Ex. 3
at 147. The chief complaint was listed as “L shoulder pain” and Petitioner noted that “[t]he
problem began 2 months ago[ when he h]ad his second Hep A shot[.]” Id. Petitioner
reported that his “[s]houlder has slowly gotten more painful[;]” he described difficulties
with activities and sleeping and noted that his shoulder would “lock up.” Id. He explained
that when he received the subject vaccination, “it was [administered] over to the side and
hurt more than most shots. [He b]led after the shot.” Id. Despite these notations, the
“history of present illness” section includes a note from the PCP stating Petitioner
“presents with right shoulder pain.” Id. An examination revealed “[loss of range of motion
(“ROM”)] of [the] right shoulder with tenderness to movement. Tenderness to palpation of
5

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 6 of 11
anterior shoulder.” Id. at 149. The PCP’s assessment included “shoulder pain, right,” and
Petitioner was referred to orthopedics. Id.
Petitioner then saw an orthopedist on September 26, 2019, for “right shoulder
pain.” Ex. 4 at 8. Petitioner stated that “the pain started on July 3rd, 2019[,] after he
received the second Hepatitis A vaccine[.]” Id. He described the pain as “constant and
aching . . . located in the anterior aspect of his shoulder over the IM injection site.” Id.
Petitioner noted that “his ROM is limited and causes pain.” Id. Upon examination,
Petitioner exhibited swelling, warmth, tenderness on palpation of the anterior deltoid and
bicipital groove, and diminished ROM – all of the right shoulder. Id. at 10. An x-ray was
ordered, which revealed degenerative changes in the acromioclavicular (“AC”) and
glenohumeral (“GI”) joints, “with spurring of the humeral head[.]” Id. The orthopedist’s
assessment included: 1) localized primary osteoarthritis (“OA”) of both the AC and GI
joints in the right shoulder, 2) arthralgia of the right shoulder region, 3) right rotator cuff
tendonitis, and 4) a “complication following immunization.” Id. An MRI was ordered “s/p
possible immunization complication.” Id.
Following Petitioner’s October 9, 2019 MRI of the right shoulder, he returned to the
orthopedist for a follow-up visit the next day, on October 10, 2019. Ex. 4 at 4. Petitioner
reiterated that his right shoulder pain “was not bothering him until he received the Hep A
vaccination in July.” Id. He explicitly stated that his pain “began after his last HEP [sic] A
vaccine in July 2019.” Id. The orthopedist reviewed Petitioner’s MRI results and noted it
revealed “a small full thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon[,] moderately
severe outlet narrowing[,] small rim-rent tears in the infraspinatus tendon[, and] a small
full-thickness tear in the subscapularis tendon at the site of insertion.” Id. at 6. Following
this review of Petitioner’s MRI, the orthopedist’s assessment included: 1) localized
primary OA of the right AC joint, and 2) a nontraumatic rupture of the right rotator cuff
tendon. Id. Petitioner received a steroid injection in his right shoulder6 and was referred
to physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
On October 14, 2019, Petitioner attended an initial PT evaluation for “pain in [the]
right shoulder.” Ex. 6 at 2. Petitioner reported such pain “for some time” with “insidious
onset.” Id. He exhibited right shoulder weakness and decreased active and passive ROM
on examination. Id. at 2-4. The physical therapist noted that Petitioner had difficulties with
reaching, grasping, self-care, and dressing. Id. at 4. Petitioner attended a total of 19 PT
sessions for his right shoulder symptoms, through January 13, 2020. Id. at 4-30.
6 The visit notes for this encounter also note that Petitioner received a “corticosteroid injection, left shoulder.”
Ex. 4 at 7.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 7 of 11
The following month, on February 6, 2020, Petitioner followed up with his
orthopedist for “right shoulder pain.” Ex. 9 at 6. An examination of the right shoulder
showed continued tenderness with palpation of the anterior deltoid and bicipital groove
but improved ROM. Id. at 7. The orthopedist maintained his assessment of localized
primary OA and a nontraumatic rupture of the right rotator cuff tendon. Id. at 8. Petitioner
received a second steroid injection in the right shoulder. Id.
Approximately two years later, on February 10, 2022, Petitioner returned to his
orthopedist for “a follow-up evaluation of right shoulder pain.” Ex. 14 at 4. Petitioner
reported that “he has struggled with pain after an IM HEP C [sic] vaccine in 2019.” Id. He
also reported that his right shoulder symptoms had worsened since his last steroid
injection. Id. Following a physical examination, the orthopedist maintained his previous
assessment and Petitioner received a third steroid injection in the right shoulder. Id. at 6-
7. Although right shoulder surgery was recommended, the medical records do not contain
additional complaints of right shoulder pain. Id. at 7.
Petitioner submitted witness affidavits in support of his claim. Of note, Petitioner’s
friend, Robert G. Sammons, attests that “[i]n July 2019,” Petitioner told him that “he had
a Hepatitis vaccine in early July 2019 and that his shoulder was in a lot of pain from the
vaccination.” Ex. 12 ¶ 5. Mr. Sammons attests that Petitioner came to visit him in “mid-
July of 2019 shortly after his vaccination” and Petitioner “described the ongoing pain in
his right arm.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Sammons states that Petitioner showed him “exactly where the
needle was inserted on his right arm, which was pretty high up on the right shoulder.” Id.
According to Mr. Sammons, Petitioner told him that his “pain had not diminished in any
significant capacity since the vaccine administration and appeared to be progressively
worsening.” Id. ¶ 7.
Additionally, a friend and neighbor of Petitioner’s, Donna Cox, attests that she “saw
[Petitioner] the day he received the vaccine and when [she] did[, she] was quite worried
for him because he was immediately complaining about the pain in his shoulder.” Ex. 13
¶ 3. Petitioner explained to Ms. Cox that “the vaccine was administered at an angle and
caused him an instantly overwhelming amount of pain.” Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Cox states that
Petitioner showed her the site of vaccination, “which was high on his right shoulder . . . .
Blood was continuing to bubble out from under the Band-Aid on his right shoulder, and
his right shoulder was very warm to the touch.” Id. ¶ 4. According to Ms. Cox, “[t]he
following morning,” Petitioner also told her that “his shoulder felt extremely stiff[.]” Id. ¶ 5.
Over the course of “the following days and weeks,” Ms. Cox observed Petitioner “guarding
his right shoulder to protect it, and [he] couldn’t do anything with that right shoulder.” Id.
¶ 6. No additional affidavit evidence has been submitted.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 8 of 11
IV. Findings of Fact regarding Situs
While the first vaccination record submitted by Petitioner is silent as to situs, the
subsequent and complete vaccine administration form depicts (in a handwritten entry)
that the subject vaccination was administered in his left arm – a fact unhelpful to
Petitioner. Compare Ex. 1, with Ex. 8 at 2.
In response, Petitioner contends that it is relevant that the original vaccination
record – lacking pertinent information as to situs – was generated on February 28, 2020,
at 9:57am. Petitioner’s Motion at 16 (citing Ex. 1). According to Petitioner, however, in
response to a federal subpoena, the pharmacy subsequently supplied the same vaccine
administration record on November 16, 2020, which contained additional information as
to site in the “For Internal Use Only” section. Id. (citing Ex. 8 at 2); Petitioner’s Reply at 5.
In particular, Petitioner contends that the pharmacy wrote on the record that was
produced as Exhibit 1 and, in formulating Exhibit 8, added in the manufacturer, lot
number, expiration date, signature of the administrator, and circled the route and situs of
vaccine administration. Petitioner’s Motion at 17 (citing Ex. 8 at 2-4). Petitioner thus
questions whether the information in Exhibit 8 is “authentic” and why it was not included
nine months earlier in Exhibit 1. Petitioner’s Reply at 5-6. Petitioner further argues it is
“unclear” if the “left” was circled for injection site or route of administration. Petitioner’s
Motion at 17; Petitioner’s Reply at 6. Nonetheless, Petitioner proposes, as Exhibit 8 was
created nearly eight-to-nine months post vaccination, it is unreliable and should be given
little weight, especially in light of the remaining record evidence supporting right arm situs.
Petitioner’s Motion at 17 (citing Ex. 2; Ex. 12; Ex. 13).
On the other hand, Respondent asserts that Petitioner lacks evidence showing the
pharmacy altered the original vaccine administration record at some time in 2020, to add
in the situs of vaccination and other pertinent information related to the vaccination.
Respondent’s Response at 11, n.5. Respondent argues that a “more rational and
reasonable explanation” is that the vaccine consent form (Exhibit 1) was scanned before
Petitioner received the subject vaccination and the administrator filled in the form after
Petitioner was vaccinated on July 2, 2019 (resulting in Exhibit 8). Id. In support,
Respondent notes that Exhibit 8 was signed by the administrator and dated July 2, 2019;
thus it should be awarded appropriate weight. Id.
In my experience with SIRVA cases (over 2,000 within SPU since my appointment
as Chief Special Master, additional cases handled within chambers, and review of
opinions issued by other special masters), I have found it often to be the case that
information regarding the vaccine administration site is incorrect – especially information
8

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 9 of 11
contained in computerized records, which may feature a ‘dropdown’ menu which may not
be updated each time a separate vaccine is administered.7 Thus, although such records
are unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing on issues pertaining to situs,
they are not per se reliable simply because they come first – and in fact the nature of their
creation provides some basis for not accepting them at face value. But information which
requires specific action on the part of the vaccine administrator (often at the very time of
administration), such as a handwritten notation on a printed form, generally warrants more
significant weight.8
Such handwritten notations can be rebutted of course, by additional, case-specific
evidence and circumstances. For instance, in one case a petitioner’s history of
vaccination and subsequent injury in the same shoulder was medically documented just
13 days post-vaccination, and consistently thereafter. That petitioner also explained that
she requested vaccination in her non-dominant arm. Rizvi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 21-0881V, 2022 WL 2284311 at * 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2022). In
another more recent matter, the petitioner’s history was medically documented 23 days
post-vaccination, and in numerous later records. And the site notation was found on “an
otherwise haphazardly-completed form (containing entries listed diagonally and not in the
allotted space)” – constituting a specific reason to doubt the record’s reliability. Toothman
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0207V, 2024 WL 2698520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 19, 2024).
Here, while Petitioner has questioned the accuracy of the handwritten notation on
the vaccine administration record – maintaining that it was completed sometime after
February 2020, and thus should receive less weight – Petitioner has failed to produce any
specific evidence in support of his argument. For example, Petitioner has not submitted
evidence describing when the second form was allegedly completed (which is often
separate and distinct from when the form was generated), whether it was completed at a
different time from the original July 2019 vaccination consent form, or if the second
submission is even the same document/vaccine consent form originally submitted – with
alterations by the pharmacy.
7 See, e.g., Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977, 2021 WL 1940435, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-0811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at
*14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020
WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-
0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018).
8 See, e.g., Schmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1530V, 2021 WL 5226494, at *8 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 7, 2021); Marion v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0495V, 2020 WL 7054414 at
*8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2020).
9

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 10 of 11
Additionally, Petitioner’s argument that the vaccine administration form is unclear,
as it contains a circle around the route of administration while simultaneously circling the
site, is not persuasive. The vaccine administration form, although encircling notations for
both situs and route, is not so haphazardly executed as to cast doubt upon its clarity and
reliability. See Toothman, 2024 WL 2698520, at *4. Rather, it is credible that the vaccine
administrator intended to circle both entries at the same time. Thus, the handwritten
vaccine administration record in this case has some facial reliability (albeit slight) that
Petitioner has not persuasively undermined.
I acknowledge that the subsequent medical records from approximately two
months post-vaccination and thereafter are consistent with Petitioner’s claim that the
vaccine was administered in his right shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 147. However, such
reports are not based on any medical provider’s personal knowledge of the site of
Petitioner’s vaccine administration. Rather, they were created later in time, and thus likely
represent Petitioner’s own report of situs to his treating physicians. While I have
previously and often found that a petitioner’s subsequent, consistent reports to treaters
regarding situs, paired with the appropriate treatment of the alleged shoulder in which the
subject vaccine was administered, can overcome a conflicting vaccination record,9 I do
not find the same to be true here. Indeed, Petitioner’s reports regarding situs appear to
have been made only after he was in contact with or had retained legal counsel in
conjunction with his vaccine-injury claim. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 27-30 (showing that Petitioner
had signed a medical records release form, releasing his medical records to counsel on
August 20, 2019, approximately one month prior to Petitioner’s first mention of vaccine-
related right shoulder pain to a treating physician). Thus, Petitioner’s reports to his
treaters are not sufficient to overcome the handwritten vaccination record in this case. I
therefore find that the subject Hep A vaccination was more likely than not administered in
Petitioner’s left deltoid.
Conclusion and Order to Show Cause
The factual finding of a left-sided vaccine administration renders the claim of a
right-sided SIRVA untenable. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (providing that a SIRVA is
limited to “the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered”).
Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is therefore DISMISSED.
It is therefore unnecessary to resolve whether Petitioner’s shoulder pain began
within the 48-hour post-vaccination timeframe that would be required for a Table SIRVA
claim or whether Petitioner’s condition could be explained by another condition or
9 See, e.g., Toothman, 2024 WL 2698520, at *4.
10

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 47 Filed 07/24/24 Page 11 of 11
abnormality. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)(ii), (iv); Respondent’s Response at 13-16
(challenging these criteria).
Instead at this stage, the remaining question is whether any off-Table, causation-
in-fact claim might be feasible. See generally Amended Petition (alleging only a Table
SIRVA); but see Petitioner’s Motion at 19 (requesting the opportunity to obtain an expert
report to address whether another condition or abnormality may be present to explain
Petitioner’s condition). Respondent’s briefing and my preliminary review of the evidence
has identified a potential alternative cause for the injury discussed herein. Therefore,
Petitioner will be afforded one brief and final opportunity to determine whether he would
like to pursue any remaining causation-in-fact claim centering on an injury in the non-
vaccinated shoulder/arm. However, Petitioner may not formally retain an expert, or order
any expert’s written report, without prior consultation with Respondent and the Court. Any
request for experts, when combined with this case’s age, would likely support the case’s
transfer out of SPU for further proceedings.
Petitioner’s failure to respond to this or other orders issued in this action, as well
as failure to file evidence required to support his claim, will be interpreted as a failure to
prosecute resulting in dismissal of Petitioner’s claim. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Sapharas
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 21(b).
Accordingly, within 30 days, by no later than Thursday, July 18, 2024,
Petitioner shall show cause why his claim should not be dismissed for insufficient
proof of causation-in-fact.
In the alternative, if Petitioner wishes to exit the Vaccine Program, counsel shall
file the appropriate motion, Stipulation, or Notice. See
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/EXITING GUIDANCE TO PRO
SES.pdf.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00322-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-25
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/21/2025) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/25/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-322V
GEORGE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 21, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On March 23, 2020, George Taylor filed a Petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging a right SIRVA. But my previous finding that the at-issue vaccine
was likely administered in Petitioner’s left arm,3 and the lack of any further submissions
1 Because this unpublished 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).
3 See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Dismissing Table SIRVA Claim filed June 18, 2024 (ECF
No. 45) (containing a longer discussion of the procedural history, and the underlying evidence, which is
fully incorporated and relied upon herein).

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/25/25 Page 2 of 5
from Petitioner,4 establish that entitlement cannot be substantiated – even on the basis
of a causation-in-fact claim. Accordingly, the matter is appropriately dismissed for
insufficient proof and for failure to prosecute.
Insufficient Proof
Under Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that all requirements for a petition set forth in section
11(c)(1) have been satisfied. A petitioner may prevail on his claim if the vaccinee for whom
he seeks compensation has “sustained, or endured the significant aggravation of any
illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table).
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i).
If, however, the vaccinee suffered an injury that either is not listed in the Table or
did not occur within the prescribed time frame, petitioner must prove that the administered
vaccine caused injury to receive Program compensation on behalf of the vaccinee.
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii). In such circumstances, petitioner asserts a “non-Table or
[an] off-Table” claim and to prevail, petitioner must prove his claim by preponderant
evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or
‘more probable than not’ causation.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d
1274, 1278-80 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referencing Hellebrand v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
999 F.2d 1565, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal Circuit has held that to establish
an off-Table injury, petitioners must “prove . . . that the vaccine was not only a but-for
cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Shyface v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir 1999). Id. at 1352. The
received vaccine, however, need not be the predominant cause of the injury. Id. at 1351.
The Federal Circuit has noted that petitioners “must show ‘a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that a vaccine was a
substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting
Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In
addition, "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
4 Petitioner filed a Response to my Table Dismissal and Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 46. However,
rather than taking the opportunity to supply further evidence in support of any off-Table claim (or to seek
leave to do so in the form of expert support) as instructed, Petitioner’s Response appears to essentially
seek reconsideration of the aforementioned Findings of Fact and was thus procedurally inappropriate. See,
e.g., id. at 4 (urging that the Court “should use Petitioner’s Response to Show Cause as an opportunity to
fix an injustice to Petitioner”). Indeed, Vaccine Rule 10(e) contemplates that a motion for reconsideration
be filed within 21 days of a special master’s decision as to whether an award of compensation is to be
made. See id. My Table Dismissal and Order to Show Cause did no such thing; rather, it left the door open
for Petitioner to submit further evidence in pursuit of any off-Table claim in the non-vaccinated arm, which
Petitioner did not do. See ECF No. 45 at 11.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/25/25 Page 3 of 5
vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. The Federal Circuit subsequently reiterated
these requirements in its Althen decision. See 418 F.3d at 1278. Althen requires a
petitioner:
to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination
brought about her injury by providing: (1) a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a
logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing
of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.
Id. All three prongs of Althen must be satisfied. Id.
Finding a petitioner is entitled to compensation must not be “based on the claims
of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section
13(a)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The
records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis
and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance,
accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to
the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
I previously determined that the Hepatitis A vaccine received by Petitioner on July
2, 2019, was more likely than not administered in his left deltoid. That finding required
dismissal of his right-sided Table SIRVA claim, but he was permitted to consider whether
any off-Table, causation-in-fact claim might be feasible. However, he has not made any
representation to that effect – within the specified 30-day timeframe, or in the 14 months
thereafter.
The medical records do not establish causation-in-fact. In particular, the initial
evaluations by primary care providers either fail to mention shoulder issues (of either
laterality) or contain conflicting medical assessments of Petitioner’s shoulder complaints.
Compare Ex. 3 at 141-45 (a visit on August 2, 2019, with no mention of shoulder
symptoms), with id. at 147 (listing the chief complaint as “L [sic] shoulder pain” on
September 13, 2019, but undergoing an examination of the right shoulder). An orthopedist
3

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/25/25 Page 4 of 5
reviewed that Petitioner’s MRI and clinical evidence were not consistent with a fracture,
dislocation, structural abnormalities, or bursitis.5 Ex. 4 at 6.
I also observe that no provider recorded the independent belief, let alone proposed
a medical theory, that the vaccine’s administration or any of its components caused
Petitioner’s right shoulder complaints. Any mere references to the vaccine in the record
are based on Petitioner’s history, centering on a right-sided administration – which, I have
found, has inadequate evidentiary support. See, e.g., Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 01-0162V, 2009 WL 332044, at *187 n.523 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12,
2009), mot. for review den’d, 88 Fed. Cl. 706 (2009) (discussing the importance of an
accurate factual basis for any treating provider or expert opinion); Burns v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that a special master may reject
an opinion that is “based on facts not substantiated by the record”).
Otherwise, the medical records merely show a potential temporal association with
the vaccine in question – also reported by Petitioner – that seemed to be ruled out
following further diagnostic testing revealing other conditions or abnormalities in the right
shoulder. Compare Ex. 4 at 8-10 (a September 26, 2019 orthopedic assessment including
“a complication following immunization” and ordering an MRI for “possible immunization
complication”), with id. at 4-6 (an October 10, 2019 orthopedic assessment following MRI
that did not include an immunization complication).
Petitioner was instructed to consult with Respondent and the Court if he wished to
seek medical expert support for his off-Table claim. Findings of Fact at 11 (noting that
any request for experts would likely support the case’s transfer out of SPU). But he has
not requested expert involvement. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence of causation-
in-fact to proceed with the claim.
Failure to Prosecute
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 appropriately 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 & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per
5 Rather, Petitioner’s MRI revealed “a small full thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon[,]
moderately severe outlet narrowing[,] small rim-rent tears in the infraspinatus tendon[, and] a small full-
thickness tear in the subscapularis tendon at the site of insertion.” Ex. 4 at 6. Following this review of
Petitioner’s MRI, the orthopedist’s assessment included: 1) localized primary osteoarthritis of the right
acromioclavicular joint, and 2) a nontraumatic rupture of the right rotator cuff tendon. Id.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00322-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/25/25 Page 5 of 5
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 & Hum.
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.”).
My June 18, 2024 Findings of Fact specifically warned Petitioner that any
remaining causation-in-fact claim risked dismissal, and therefore it was critical that he
took steps to bulwark the claim. But he did not respond appropriately (see supra, note 4)
by the 30-day deadline or at any time thereafter, without offering any justification or
explanation. As previously warned, this lack of response (in the form of additional
evidence/argument regarding an off-Table claim) is hereby interpreted as a failure to
prosecute. Findings of Fact at 11.
Conclusion
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient evidence and for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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.
5