VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01760
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01760
Petitioner: Jacqueline Smith
Filed: 2021-08-12
Decided: 2021-09-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jacqueline Smith filed a petition on August 12, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine she received on September 17, 2018. After investigating the facts and science supporting her case, Ms. Smith concluded that she would be unable to prove her entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Consequently, she moved for a decision dismissing her petition. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The decision states that a petition must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion, neither of which was sufficient in this case. Therefore, the Chief Special Master denied Ms. Smith's claim for compensation and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, entering judgment against her.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01760-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/12/2021) regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01760-UNJ Document 28 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1760V
UNPUBLISHED
JACQUELINE SMITH, also known as Chief Special Master Corcoran
JACKIE,
Filed: August 12, 2021
Petitioner,
v. Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
Dismissing Her Petition; Influenza
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA); Special Processing Unit
Respondent. (SPU)
Timothy James Lessman, Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for Petitioner.
Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On December 4, 2020, Jacqueline Smith filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 42 U.S.C. §300aa-
10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that
was administered on September 17, 2018. Petition at 1.
On June 29, 2021, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition, noting
that “an investigation of the fact and science supporting her case has demonstrated [to
Petitioner] that she will be unable to prove that she entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program.” ECF No. 23. Petitioner 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.”
1 Because this unpublished ruling 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 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-01760-UNJ Document 28 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 2
Id. Petitioner noted that she “does intend to protect her rights to file a civil action in the
future. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §300aa-21(a)(2), she intends to elect to reject
the Vaccine Program judgment against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id.
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 §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record
does not disclose sufficient evidence to establish 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. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was injured
by a vaccine.
For these reasons, in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s claim for
compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.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