VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01370
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01370
Petitioner: Dallas Chapman
Filed: 2020-10-13
Decided: 2023-01-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-05
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Dallas Chapman filed a petition on October 13, 2020, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 5, 2018. The respondent filed a report on January 3, 2022, opposing compensation. The respondent asserted that the petitioner could not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of the November 5, 2018, flu vaccination. Due to insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner's claims, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued an Order to Show Cause on November 22, 2022. In response, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her own petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove her entitlement to compensation. The petitioner acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending all her rights in the Vaccine Program. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that her injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not disclose evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The Special Master found that the petition was not supported by medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate a vaccine injury. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof, and judgment was entered against the petitioner. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision, unless a motion for review was filed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Dallas Chapman alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after an influenza vaccine on November 5, 2018. Respondent opposed compensation, asserting Petitioner could not prove shoulder pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. The Special Master issued an Order to Show Cause due to insufficient evidence. Petitioner then moved to dismiss her petition, acknowledging inability to prove entitlement. The Special Master found no evidence of a Table Injury and no persuasive evidence that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused, as required by the Vaccine Act. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, onset symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or name any medical experts. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof, with judgment entered against Petitioner. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on January 20, 2023 (originally filed December 14, 2022). Petitioner's counsel was Bridget Candace McCullough, and Respondent's counsel was Naseem Kourosh.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01370-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-20
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/14/2022 ) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01370-UNJ Document 34 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1370V
UNPUBLISHED
DALLAS CHAPMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 14, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
HUMAN SERVICES, Dismissing the Petition; Insufficient
Evidence; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 13, 2020, Dallas Chapman 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 alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 5, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 7.
On January 3, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, opposing
compensation in this case. ECF 25. Specifically, he asserted that “Petitioner cannot
preponderantly prove that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of her November 5,
2018 flu vaccination.” Id. at 8.
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-01370-UNJ Document 34 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 2
Because the record does not sufficiently support Petitioner’s claims that she
suffered a SIRVA injury as alleged, I issued an Order to Show Cause on November 22,
2022. ECF No. 29. In response to my Order, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision
Dismissing her Petition. ECF No. 30. In her motion, Petitioner indicated that “[a]n
investigation of the facts and science supporting this case has demonstrated to
[P]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶ 1. Petitioner further indicated that she “understands that a
decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against
her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine
Program.” Id. at ¶ 3.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the
record does not disclose any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further,
the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence
indicating that Petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was
injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A),
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for
insufficient proof.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk
of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
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.
2