VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01342
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01342
Petitioner: Christopher Jay Hankins
Filed: 2020-10-07
Decided: 2025-06-16
Vaccine: pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine
Vaccination date: 2019-09-27
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Christopher Jay Hankins filed a petition on October 7, 2020, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine on September 27, 2019. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report arguing against compensation, and the parties exchanged expert reports. The Special Master held a Rule 5 conference and directed the petitioner to provide an expert report from a neurologist, setting an initial deadline. Following multiple status reports regarding the petitioner's efforts to retain an expert, the Special Master ordered the petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. On May 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(a), the case was dismissed without prejudice, and judgment was not to be entered.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01342-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER (Originally filed: 5/21/2025) regarding 85 Order Concluding Proceedings. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (aevw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01342-UNJ Document 86 Filed 06/16/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: May 21, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRISTOPHER JAY HANKINS, *
* No. 20-1342V
Petitioner, *
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1
On October 7, 2020, Christopher Jay Hankins (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the
National Vaccine Injury Program2 alleging that as a result of receiving a pneumococcal 13-valent
conjugate vaccine (“Prevnar 13”) on September 27, 2019, Petitioner suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1); Amended
(“Am.”) Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 21).
On July 15, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report arguing against compensation.
Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) (ECF No. 25). Between July 2023 and June 2024, the
parties filed expert reports. Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Exs.”) 10, 12; Resp. Exs. A, D.
On September 10, 2024, the undersigned held a Rule 5 conference. She was unable to
1 Because this Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned
is required to post it 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 Order 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, the undersigned agrees that the
identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Order to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
1

Case 1:20-vv-01342-UNJ Document 86 Filed 06/16/25 Page 2 of 2
provide her preliminary findings in the case as it needed further development. She directed
Petitioner to provide an expert report from a neurologist. Rule 5 Order dated Sept. 11, 2024
(ECF No. 67). The undersigned set an initial deadline of October 10, 2024 for Petitioner identify
an expert neurologist. Id. at 2.
Between October 2024 and March 2025, Petitioner filed multiple status reports regarding
his efforts to retain an expert neurologist. See Order to Show Cause dated Mar. 24, 2025, at 1-3
(ECF No. 83). On March 24, 2025, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to show cause why his
case should not be dismissed by filing an expert report from a neurologist, addressing the issues
raised in undersigned’s Rule 5 Order, no later than Friday, May 23, 2025. Id. at 3-4.
On May 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, indicating “[t]he parties
hereby stipulate pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a) that this action shall be dismissed.” Joint
Stipulation of Dismissal, filed May 21, 2025 (ECF No. 84).
Under Vaccine Rule 21(a), which governs dismissal of a petition, “Petitioner may dismiss
the petition without order of the special master or the court by filing: . . . (B) a stipulation of
dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.” Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(B).
Unless stated otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. Vaccine Rule 21(a)(2). “A petition
dismissed under this subdivision (a) will not result in a judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for
purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a).” Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3).
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(a), this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is instructed that judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
2