VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00904
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00904
Petitioner: Russell Ramsey
Filed: 2020-10-12
Decided: 2022-11-16
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-03-10
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Russell Ramsey filed a petition alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a Tdap vaccine received on March 10, 2019. The court found that the evidence did not support his claim, noting a credible alternative cause for his shoulder pain: a significant prior left shoulder injury and surgery, as well as a workplace accident on the same day as the vaccination. The medical records indicated a history of numerous traumatic injuries from his past as a bull rider, including multiple shoulder surgeries. Despite the petitioner's belief that the vaccine caused his pain, treating physicians, after receiving more information about the workplace accident, opined that the pain was more likely caused by the accident. The court determined that Mr. Ramsey failed to provide preponderant evidence to establish causation, either as a Table injury or an off-Table claim. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient evidence.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00904-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-11-16
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/12/2022 ) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0904V
UNPUBLISHED
RUSSELL RAMSEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 12, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Dismissal; Insufficient Evidence;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, Dresher, LLP, PA, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On July 24, 2020, Russell Ramsey 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, due to the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on March 10, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 10.
The record as it currently stands does not support Petitioner’s claims. Specifically,
there is evidence supporting a credible alternative cause which would explain Petitioner’s
shoulder pain. And the facts and circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s left shoulder
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).

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 10
injury are further complicated by the existence of a significant prior left shoulder injury
and surgery. Thus, because Petitioner has failed to provide preponderant evidence to
support his claim (whether styled as a Table or causation-in-fact claim), and/or to rebut
this other, contrary evidence, I hereby DENY entitlement.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, Mr. Ramsey filed his affidavit and some of the medical
records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-3, 5-9, ECF No. 1; Section 11(c).
Several weeks later, he filed additional medical records. Exhibits 10-14, ECF No. 9;
Exhibit 4, filed by CD on Aug. 11, 2020, without an accompanying Notice of Filing. On
August 21, 2020, the case was activated and assigned to the Special Processing Unit.
ECF No. 10.
On February 10, 2021, Respondent filed a status report identifying outstanding
medical records and deficiencies in Petitioner’s claim. ECF No. 15. Specifically, he
reported that he had not received a copy of Petitioner’s workers’ compensation records
filed by CD as Exhibit 4, noted that the medical records filed as Exhibit 13 appear to be
for another individual, and requested updated medical records from Petitioner’s July 2020
surgery and physical therapy (“PT”). Id. at 1. Regarding any factual issues which needed
further development, Respondent stressed that the vaccine record did not indicate the
site of vaccination, and that there existed evidence supporting the proposition that
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was due to a workplace injury. Id. at 2. In response,
Petitioner filed the requested updated medical records, a copy of Exhibit 4 which
previously had been filed by CD, another affidavit, and a photograph of a tattoo on his left
shoulder which he claims the vaccine administrator was attempting to avoid when
administering the Tdap vaccine. Exhibits 4, 15-18, ECF Nos. 17-18.
On November 22, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, setting forth his
specific objections to compensation in this case. ECF No. 24. He argued that a Table
SIRVA could not succeed “because there is another abnormality or condition that can
explain [P]etitioner’s condition.” Id. at 13; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv) (2017) (fourth
criterion listed in the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA).
Respondent noted evidence of Petitioner’s prior condition - including former injuries and
degenerative changes, and the previously-mentioned workplace accident on March 10,
2019 – referenced the same day as the date of vaccination. Id. at 13-14.
On July 6, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause, allowing Petitioner a final
chance to obtain and to file the evidence needed to support his allegations. ECF No. 27.
In the order, I stated that, based upon the record as it currently stood, Petitioner not only
could not meet the Table elements for a SIRVA injury, but would also likely be unable to
2

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 10
establish causation-in-fact. Id. 6, 6 n.4 (citing the SIRVA QAI - 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)
and the three-pronged test for causation - Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 518
F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). I further noted that Petitioner had provided no
evidence, other than the timing of his injury, which would support the establishment of a
logical cause and effect showing the Tdap vaccine was the cause of his left shoulder pain,
and that there was significant evidence supporting the proposition that this pain was more
likely caused by the workplace injury Petitioner suffered on March 10, 2019 – an issue
which, if preponderantly supported, would defeat any form of the claim, Table or not.
Order to Show Cause at 6.
After requesting additional time to act on several occasions (ECF Nos. 28-29),
Petitioner filed a single additional item of evidence: a signed declaration3 from a co-
worker. Exhibit 19, filed Sept. 27, 2022, ECF No. 30. In it, the co-worker indicated that
Petitioner had “told [him] the day of his accident that his shoulder was not working
correctly, and that those symptoms began following his tetanus vaccination.” Id. at ¶ 2.
Noting that Petitioner previously was “in great physical shape” (id.), the co-worker
described the physical limitations and difficulties Petitioner experienced thereafter (id. at
¶ 3). Petitioner provided no additional evidence or argument.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Applicable Legal Standards
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 her claim if the vaccinee for
whom she 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). According to the most recent version of the Table, a SIRVA is
compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The specific criteria establishing a SIRVA are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
3 Although not an affidavit, the declaration is signed under penalty of perjury as required pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 1746.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 10
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies
occurring after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). If a petitioner establishes that the vaccinee has suffered a
“Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
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 her claim by preponderant
evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or
‘more probable than not’ causation.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279-80 (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 Circuit Court has indicated that petitioners “must show ‘a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that the vaccine was a
4

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 10
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)). The Circuit
Court added that "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing that
the 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). Further, contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be accurate and
complete in their recording of all relevant information as to petitioner’s medical issues.
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993, F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Testimony offered after the events in questions is considered less reliable than
contemporaneous reports because the need for accurate explanation of symptoms is
more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993).
III. Relevant Factual History
Although there is an absence of prior medical records in this case,4 those records
which have been filed reveal Petitioner worked as a bull rider when younger and sustained
numerous traumatic injuries during that time. See, e.g., Exhibit 3 at 31. He underwent
multiple prior shoulder surgeries – including on his left shoulder in 1994 and his right
shoulder in 2000. E.g., id. And Petitioner readily acknowledges his prior left shoulder
condition and surgery. Petition at ¶ 3; Exhibit 5 at ¶ 4; Exhibit 18 at ¶ 5. At the time of
vaccination, Petitioner had also admitted to regular marijuana use for chronic pain. E.g.,
Exhibit 2 at 28-29.
4 The only medical record from prior to vaccination is an initial visit to Dear Creek Family Healthcare and
Wellness Clinic for a cold, fever, and body pain on February 21, 2019 – less than three weeks prior to
vaccination. Exhibit 9 at 123-36.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 6 of 10
On March 10, 2019, while reversing a motorized pallet jack at his place of
employment (Associated Wholesale Groceries, Inc.), Petitioner sustained an injury to his
left ankle after it became trapped between the machine he was operating and shelving.
Exhibit 3 at 68 (initial report in emergency room); Exhibit 2 at 28 (orthopedic assessment).
While at the emergency room, he was administered a Tdap vaccine in his left deltoid.
Exhibit 14 at 7.
When seen at the clinic the next day – March 11, 2019 - Petitioner indicated that
“[h]e went to McBride ER and states they gave him a tetanus shot in his arm and his arm
hurts more than his ankle.” Exhibit 3 at 59. However, the remainder of the medical record
focuses on his ankle injury. Petitioner admitted to “prior fractures of the left lower leg for
which he had plates and screws placed . . .. years ago due to bull riding,” and indicated
he used marijuana three times a day for chronic pain. Id.
At a follow-up visit for his left ankle contusion on March 22nd, Petitioner “also
complain[ed] of some soreness in his left shoulder where he received his tetanus shot.”
Exhibit 3 at 52. By his next visit on March 25th, he reported that his left shoulder pain “had
been getting worse,” adding that “[y]esterday, he pulled about 250 cases and since then
he hasn’t really been able to use his arm because of the increased pain.” Id. at 49. He
indicated that his shoulder pain “started after he had his tetanus injection a couple of
weeks ago and when he first injured his ankle.” Id. The orthopedist assessed Petitioner
as having “[l]eft shoulder pain with a history of a tetanus injection into the left shoulder . .
. [and] a left ankle contusion,” ordered testing, prescribed medication, and indicated he
would consider ordering an MRI if Petitioner’s symptoms persisted. Id. at 50.
Two days later, Petitioner reported improvement in his left shoulder movement but
continued significant pain, “mostly in the lateral shoulder and kind of deep in the shoulder.”
Exhibit 3 at 46. The orthopedist ordered MRIs of Petitioner’s left shoulder and ankle. Id.
at 47; see id. at 42-45 (results of MRIs performed that same day). The shoulder MRI
revealed “[l]eft shoulder degenerative changes with slight labral tearing and possible long
head of the biceps tearing and rotator cuff fraying.” Id. at 39. These findings were
described as having “some degenerative association that are likely old.” Id.
The first time Petitioner sought treatment for only his left shoulder pain occurred
on April 5, 2019. Exhibit 3 at 35. Angry that no physician had taken his complaints
regarding his left shoulder pain seriously, Petitioner reported that his symptoms began
the day after vaccination, stating “that the next morning he woke up and he couldn’t use
his shoulder.” Id. Similarly, the medical record from Petitioner’s March 29th visit indicated
his complaints of left shoulder pain began the day after his workplace injury and
subsequent vaccination. Id. at 40. The orthopedist recommended anti-inflammatories, a
steroid injection, and PT, acknowledging that the recommendation of another injection,
6

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 7 of 10
as opposed to surgery, might be counterintuitive but was the best course of treatment. Id.
at 36. After some discussion, Petitioner consented to the orthopedist’s plan. Id.
On May 20, 2019, Petitioner underwent his first independent medical examination
(“IME”) of both his left ankle and left shoulder conditions. Exhibit 3 at 24-28. The medical
history section of this record includes Petitioner’s description of left shoulder pain that
woke him up the night of March 10, 2019, which he thought was due to the Tdap vaccine
he received. Id. at 24. After examining Petitioner, the physician opined that, in addition to
the left ankle injury, Petitioner “did sustain injury to his left shoulder at the time of his
accident.” The physician stressed that Petitioner reported “that his left shoulder and arm
were jerked due to holding on to the steering wheel.” Id. Thus, this record suggested that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain was a product of his accident, rather than due to the vaccine
he received in the wake of the accident.
At a second IME – performed on August 26, 2019 - Petitioner again reported an
injury to both his left ankle and shoulder when driving motorized pallet jack at work on
March 10th. Exhibit 4 at 74. He stated that “he was reversing the pallet jack with his left
hand on the steering wheel while looking over his left shoulder. . . , pinched his left foot
between the jack and rack, and his left shoulder was ‘snapped back’ as the handlebar
twisted.” Id. Although the physician performing this second IME opined Petitioner’s left
foot and toe complaint were due to the March 10th workplace injury, he indicated
Petitioner’s current left shoulder complaints were not. Id. at 79. However, he provided no
rationale for his decision, and did not discuss the etiology of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain
further. Id. at 74-80.
On December 26, 2019, the Judge in Petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim
ordered a third IME specifically to determine whether his left shoulder injury was related
to his March 10th workplace accident. Exhibit 12 at 35-37. The orthopedic surgeon who
performed the IME on January 24, 2020, diagnosed Petitioner with “a left shoulder strain
with intra-articular pathology consistent with a superior labral tear and anterior and
anterior inferior labral tear and impingement with rotator cuff tendinitis and interstitial
tearing of the long head of the biceps tendon.” Exhibit 3 at 12. Noting Petitioner’s “prior
history of injury and surgery with early onset degenerative changes of that left shoulder,”
the orthopedic surgeon opined that “[b]ased on the mechanism of injury and [Petitioner’s]
current condition, [he] believe[d] that the injury that occurred on March 10, 2019.
represents a significant and identifiable aggravation of a pre-existing condition.” Id.
When treating Petitioner again on June 11, 2020, the orthopedic surgeon reiterated
his diagnosis, which included a SLAP5 tear and the likelihood that Petitioner had suffered
5 SLAP stands for Superior Labrum Anterior Posterior. MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 552 (16th ed. 2020).
7

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 8 of 10
a work-related left shoulder injury. Exhibit 12 at 16-17. He recommended arthroscopic
surgery. Id. at 17.
IV. Analysis
Petitioner’s injury does not meet the definition for a Table SIRVA injury, given the
record evidence of a preexisting condition and potential alternative cause. There is
significant, reliable evidence establishing that Petitioner had a prior history of left shoulder
pain, inflammation, and dysfunction, plus a current condition which would explain his left
shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) & (iv) (first and fourth QAI criteria).
Additionally, Petitioner cannot provide the preponderant evidence needed to prove
actual causation. Specifically, he cannot satisfy the second Althen prong, which requires
proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect, usually supported by facts derived from
a petitioner’s medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu ex rel. Andreu v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1375-77 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); Capizzano v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Grant v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In establishing that a vaccine “did
cause” an injury, the opinions and views of the injured party’s treating physicians are
entitled to some weight. Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1367; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326 (“treating
physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether a ‘logical sequence
of cause and effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury’”) (quoting
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280).
Although the physicians who initially treated Petitioner, from early March through
April 2019, memorialized Petitioner’s stated belief that his left shoulder pain was vaccine-
caused, only the orthopedist (who saw Petitioner on April 5, 2019) seemed to accept that
causal connection. However, it appears that he was not provided the history Petitioner
subsequently gave of his left hand on the motorized pallet jack and a jerking of his left
shoulder. When Petitioner provided this additional information, all treating physicians -
including the two who performed the first and third IMEs - opined that Petitioner’s left
shoulder pain was caused by the workplace injury. The only exception is the physician
who performed the second IME, who opined that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was
unrelated to his March 10th workplace injury. However, this physician did not mention the
Tdap vaccine Petitioner received or provide any further information as to causation. Thus,
the evidence from Petitioner’s treating physicians overwhelmingly favors the March 10th
workplace accident as the cause of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain.
The only other evidence in the medical records which would support vaccine
causation are the contemporaneously-provided statements by Petitioner that he believed
his injury was vaccine caused. However, these statements reflect Petitioner’s initial belief,
8

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 9 of 10
which transformed over time, as evidenced by the totality of the medical record. See, e.g.,
Exhibit 2 at 17 (indicating Petitioner “is working on seeing whether his shoulder can be
causally related to this accident”). Additionally, Petitioner described a pain onset of the
next day or, at the earliest, that night – timing more conducive to an acute shoulder strain.
And conditions such as Petitioner’s SLAP tear are generally not attributable to an
incorrectly administered vaccination.
Despite due opportunity, the Petitioner has identified no additional proof that would
alter my earlier analysis. Following the issuance of my Order to Show Cause, Petitioner
provided only the signed declaration of a co-worker. Exhibit 19. Although the co-worker
provided helpful information regarding the limitations Petitioner later exhibited, he
otherwise simply recounted Petitioner’s belief that the vaccine was the cause of his
shoulder injury. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
When providing evidence of actual causation, a petitioner is not required to
eliminate all alternative causes. Walther v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 485 F.3d 1146,
1149 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the lack of alternative cause may be included as part of
evidence to satisfy the “did cause” prong. Id. at 1149-50 (referencing Pafford v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). If a petitioner relies upon
the lack of an alternative cause, Respondent may introduce evidence of an alternative
cause to rebut Petitioner’s arguments. And if Petitioner can establish a prima facia case
for causation without relying upon the lack of an alternative cause, Respondent still may
counter Petitioner’s claim by introducing evidence to show there is another source for
Petitioner’s pain. Section 13(a)(1)(B). However, he then has the burden of providing
preponderant evidence to support the existence of an alternative cause. Walther, 485
F.3d at 1152.
Petitioner has failed to provide the evidence needed to establish a prima facie case
for causation. He has provided no evidence, other than his personal belief and the timing
of his injury, which would support the establishment of a logical cause and effect showing
the Tdap vaccine was the cause of his left shoulder pain. And there is significant evidence
supporting the proposition that this pain was caused by the workplace injury Petitioner
suffered on March 10, 2019. For these reasons, the entirety of the claim warrants
dismissal – for it is evident that even a non-Table, causation-in-fact version of the claim
cannot succeed.
Conclusion
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide
preponderant evidence to support his allegation of a left shoulder injury which meets the
Table SIRVA definition. Nor can he preponderantly establish that his injury was more
9

Case 1:20-vv-00904-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/16/22 Page 10 of 10
likely than not caused by the Tdap vaccine he received on March 10, 2019. Petitioner
was informed that failure to provide preponderant to support his claim would be treated
as either a failure to prosecute this claim or as an inability to provide supporting
documentation for the claim.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and insufficient
evidence. 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.
10