VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00250
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00250
Petitioner: Heidi Scheucher
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2022-09-06
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-05-01
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Heidi Scheucher filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 7, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination received in May 2020. The petition did not include any medical history for treatment of the alleged injury or any other statutorily required supporting documentation. On January 12, 2021, an order was issued requiring the petitioner to file outstanding documents. On March 2, 2022, some medical records and a Statement of Completion were filed. The following day, a motion was filed indicating no additional records would be filed and requesting a decision based on the current record. A status conference was held on March 14, 2022, during which the petitioner's counsel confirmed no additional information would be submitted, including the statutorily required affidavit. The Special Master deferred ruling on the motion to allow for standard case review. On May 20, 2022, an Order to Show Cause was issued, noting the lack of medical records supporting the severity requirement, the persistence of the shoulder injury for more than six months, and the absence of an affidavit. The order warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if the outstanding documents were not filed or if there was no response. On July 18, 2022, the petitioner's counsel filed a response, stating that the Order to Show Cause had been sent to the petitioner by certified mail and other means, with follow-up attempts, but without success. Counsel indicated an inability to contact the petitioner and therefore an inability to obtain the outstanding documents. Counsel requested a decision to resolve the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, citing the petitioner's obligation to follow and respond to orders and the failure to communicate with counsel, which prevented compliance. The decision noted that this failure was without justification or explanation. As an alternative basis for dismissal, the Special Master found that the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to compensation because she did not establish the severity requirement, which mandates that the injury persisted for more than six months or resulted in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. The lack of evidence to support this requirement was detailed in the Order to Show Cause, and no additional medical records were filed subsequently. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner's counsel was Leah V. Durant, and respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Heidi Scheucher alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a Tdap vaccination received on May 1, 2020. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute due to the petitioner's failure to comply with court orders, including providing statutorily required documentation such as medical records supporting the severity requirement and an affidavit. Petitioner's counsel was unable to contact the petitioner to obtain these documents. As an alternative ground for dismissal, the Special Master found that the petitioner failed to establish entitlement because the severity requirement (injury persisting more than six months or resulting in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention) was not met due to a lack of evidence. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 6, 2022, for failure to prosecute and failure to establish entitlement. Petitioner's counsel was Leah V. Durant, and respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00250-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-06
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/8/2022) regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00250-UNJ Document 24 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-250V
UNPUBLISHED
HEIDI SCHEUCHER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 8, 2022
v.
Show cause; failure to prosecute;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis
HUMAN SERVICES, (Tdap) vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 7, 2021, Heidi Scheucher filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccination she received on May, 2020. ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s failure to
prosecute her claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
In the petition, Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury from a Tdap
vaccination but did not provide any medical history for treatment of the injury. ECF No.
1. Petitioner did not submit any statutorily required supporting documentation with the
petition. On January 12, 2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file
these outstanding documents. ECF No. 5.
On March 2, 2022, Petitioner filed some medical records and a Statement of
Completion. ECF Nos. 14, 15. On the following day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00250-UNJ Document 24 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 3
on the Record indicating that indicated that “[n]o additional records are available or will
be filed in this case. [Petitioner’s] Counsel has reviewed the records and now believes
the case is ready for disposition.” ECF No. 16. Petitioner reiterated that “no additional
evidence will be presented by petitioner” and “requests that the Chief Special Master
issue a Decision based on the current record.” Id.
A status conference was held on March 14, 2022, to discuss this motion. During
the status conference, Petitioner’s counsel confirmed that no additional information
would be submitted in this case, including the statutorily-required affidavit. I ultimately
deferred ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to allow the standard case review process to
proceed. ECF No. 19.
On May 20, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause noting that Petitioner was
missing medical records supporting the severity requirement, that her shoulder injury
persisted for more than six months, in additional to an affidavit. ECF No. 21. The Order
warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Petitioner did not file
the outstanding documents or otherwise respond to the order.
On July 18, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a response to the Order to Show
indicating that she had sent the Order to Show Cause to Petitioner by certified mail, by
other means, and followed up without success. ECF No. 22. Despite many months of
effort, counsel indicated that she has been unable to contact Petitioner and, thus, could
not obtain the outstanding documents identified in the Order to Show Cause. Counsel
requested that a decision be issued resolving this case.
Grounds for Dismissal
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”); 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”); 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.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in my May 20, 2022 Order to Show Cause that
her failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure to communicate with her
counsel which prevents compliance with those order) risked dismissal of the claim. As
noted in the response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner has been out-of-touch
2

Case 1:21-vv-00250-UNJ Document 24 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 3
with her counsel for a substantial period of time. Because Petitioner has continued to
disregard my orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
As an alternative basis for dismissal, among other requirements for
compensation in the Vaccine Program, Petitioner must establish the severity
requirement, that her injury persisted for more than six months or resulted in inpatient
hospitalization and surgical intervention. § 300aa—11(c)(1)(D)(i). The Order to Show
Cause detailed the lack of evidence to establish the severity requirement. Since that
order, Petitioner has not filed any additional medical records to support the severity
requirement. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to compensation in the
Vaccine Program.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, she must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
3