VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01824
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01824
Petitioner: Jill Nelson
Filed: 2022-03-09
Decided: 2022-04-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-19
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jill Nelson filed a petition on March 9, 2022, alleging that she suffered a Table Injury, specifically Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on October 19, 2019. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. Following preliminary assessments, the court ordered Ms. Nelson to prepare a demand for the respondent. However, her counsel reported being unable to contact Ms. Nelson since July 2021, despite numerous attempts via voicemail, email, and certified mail. The court issued an Order to Show Cause on February 2, 2022, instructing Ms. Nelson to explain why her claim should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to provide information regarding her claim. Her counsel certified that the order was served on Ms. Nelson. Ms. Nelson herself filed no response to the Order to Show Cause. The court found that Ms. Nelson failed to communicate with her counsel and prosecute her claim, disregarding court orders without justification. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on April 8, 2022.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01824-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-08
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/09/2022) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01824-UNJ Document 30 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1824V
UNPUBLISHED
JILL NELSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 9, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Dismissal; Failure to Follow Court
HUMAN SERVICES, Orders; Failure to Prosecute;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On December 10, 2020, Jill Nelson 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 that that she suffered a Table Injury – Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) – as a result of her October 19, 2019
receipt of the influenza vaccine. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this 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-01824-UNJ Document 30 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 3
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted above, the case was initiated in December 2020. Following activation
from the Pre-Assignment Unit in February 2021 (ECF No. 11), and a preliminary
assessment by Respondent in June 2021 (ECF No. 16), I directed Petitioner to prepare
a demand for Respondent’s consideration (ECF No. 17).
In a Status Report filed November 15, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel represented that
she was unable to contact Petitioner in order to prepare a demand, pursuant to my Order.
ECF No. 21 (indicating counsel “continues to reach out to Petitioner to ascertain her
damages, including a certified contact letter sent on November 2, 2021”). On December
10, 2021, I issued an Order advising Petitioner to promptly contact her counsel, adding
that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of her claim for failure to prosecute. ECF
No. 22.
On January 10, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report advising that she
remained unable to contact Petitioner to discuss her case, and that in fact she had been
unable to contact Petitioner since July 2021. ECF No. 23. In particular, from July to
December 2021 counsel left Petitioner a total of 15 voicemail messages and sent
Petitioner three emails. Id. Counsel further advised that she has sent three letters to
Petitioner (one certified) by mail. Id. No confirmation of receipt was received by counsel
for the certified letter, however, and letters sent by standard mail were not returned
undeliverable. Id. A final effort was also made in December 2021 to contact Petitioner by
text message. Id.
On February 2, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause, instructing Petitioner to
file a response to my Order explaining why her claim should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute, and to provide other information in regard to her claim. Order to Show Cause
at 2, ECF No. 24. Petitioner’s counsel was specifically ordered to provide a copy of the
Order to Show Cause to Petitioner by both regular and certified mail, as well as by
electronic mail. Id. On March 4, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Certification of Counsel,
indicating that counsel had “served” on Petitioner a copy of my Order to Show Cause as
directed. ECF No. 25.
Petitioner has personally filed no response to my Order to Show Cause.
II. Failure to Prosecute
It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and 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
2

Case 1:20-vv-01824-UNJ Document 30 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 3
grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 Cl.
Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per 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 & Human 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”); 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.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in my Order filed December 10, 2021, and again
in my February 2, 2022 Order to Show Cause, that her failure to follow orders issued in
this matter (and specifically in this case the failure to communicate with her counsel)
risked dismissal of the claim. Because Petitioner has continued to disregard my orders,
without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
III. Conclusion
Petitioner has failed to communicate with her counsel and to prosecute her claim.
She has failed to provide the information necessary to proceed with her claim or respond
to my February 2, 2022 Order to Show Cause.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Petitioner’s
counsel shall provide a copy of this Decision to Petitioner by regular, certified, and
electronic mail. 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.
3