VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02082
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02082
Petitioner: Nurcys Grimes
Filed: 2020-12-30
Decided: 2023-12-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-07
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Nurcys Grimes filed a petition on December 30, 2020, for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 7, 2019. An amended petition was filed on September 14, 2021, providing additional facts based on medical records. The respondent filed a report and motion to dismiss on August 19, 2022, arguing that the petitioner could not demonstrate residual effects of her injury lasting longer than six months. Petitioner was ordered to file a brief addressing the duration of her shoulder injury by December 22, 2022. However, the petitioner failed to file a response or take any other action in the case for over ten months after the deadline. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran noted that it is a petitioner's obligation to follow and respond to orders, and failure to do so can be grounds for dismissal, citing precedent and Vaccine Rule 21(b). The Special Master found that the petitioner had not substantiated the disputed aspect of her claim by filing the ordered brief, provided no justification for her failure to act, and had taken no action in the case for almost a year since the last order. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner was represented by Alan Kenneth Nicolette of Nordstrom, Steele, et al., and respondent was represented by Benjamin Patrick Warder of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Nurcys Grimes alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on October 7, 2019. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the petitioner could not demonstrate residual effects of the injury for greater than six months. The Special Master ordered the petitioner to file a brief addressing the duration of her injury by December 22, 2022. The petitioner failed to file the brief or any other response for over ten months past the deadline. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 5, 2023, for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. The public decision does not describe the specific medical condition, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, expert witnesses, or the mechanism of injury. The theory of causation was based on the "Table" as per the initial database fields, but the case was dismissed before this could be adjudicated.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02082-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/02/2023) regarding 34 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-02082-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-2082V
NURCYS GRIMES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: November 2, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Alan Kenneth Nicolette, Nordstrom, Steele, et al., Tustin, CA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On December 30, 2020, Nurcys Grimes filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). On September 14, 2021, she filed an amended petition setting forth
additional facts based on the medical records. Amended Petition, ECF No. 19. Petitioner
alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result of
an influenza vaccine that she received on October 7, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted 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 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-02082-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 2
On August 19, 2022, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Motion to
Dismiss challenging compensation, arguing that Petitioner could not demonstrate that
she suffered the residual effects of her injury for greater than six months. ECF No. 32.
Petitioner was ordered to file a brief addressing the duration of her shoulder injury by no
later than December 22, 2022. However, as of today’s date – over ten months after the
deadline – she has failed to file a response of any kind.
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
grounds for the claim's dismissal. Padmanabhan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 638
Fed. App'x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 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”); see also 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.”).
Here, Petitioner has not substantiated the disputed aspect of her claim by filing the
brief I had ordered. She has also provided no reasonable justification for her failure to act,
and has otherwise taken no action in this case in the almost year’s time since my last
Order.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to
follow orders. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2