VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00378
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00378
Petitioner: Yvonne Romo
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2023-12-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-22
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Yvonne Romo filed a petition on January 8, 2021, for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 22, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not file a response to the petitioner's subsequent motion. On October 23, 2023, Ms. Romo filed a motion to dismiss her petition, explaining that her counsel discovered she had filed two claims for the same alleged SIRVA from the same vaccination and that she had already received compensation in the other claim. Ms. Romo stated that proceeding with this duplicative claim would be unreasonable and an improper use of court resources. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the case. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, medical tests, or treatments Ms. Romo underwent. The decision notes that the Vaccine Act permits only one petition per vaccine administration. Because Ms. Romo had already received compensation for this injury in a prior, related claim (Romo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1638V, 2023 WL 3596397, decided May 23, 2023), the Chief Special Master found that the current petition must be dismissed as a duplicative filing. Judgment was entered accordingly, dismissing the case.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Yvonne Romo alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on September 22, 2020. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The case was dismissed because the petitioner filed a duplicative claim for the same injury from the same vaccination, having already received compensation in a prior, related claim (Romo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1638V, 2023 WL 3596397). The dismissal was based on the Vaccine Act's provision that only one petition may be filed per vaccine administration. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 19, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Ronald Craig Homer, and respondent's counsel was Mary Eileen Holmes. No award was made as the case was dismissed.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00378-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/17/2023) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00378-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-378V
YVONNE ROMO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 17, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 8, 2021, Yvonne Romo 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 22,
2020. Petition at 1.
On October 23, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her
Petition. ECF No. 39. Petitioner stated in her motion that her “counsel became aware that
[she] had filed two (2) claims in the Vaccine Program” for the same alleged SIRVA, and
she “has received an award of compensation in her [other] claim.” Id. at 1. Petitioner
further states “[i]n these circumstances, to proceed further would be unreasonable and
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken 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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00378-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/19/23 Page 2 of 2
would not be a proper use of the resources of the Court, the [R]espondent, and the
Vaccine Program.” Id. Finally, Petitioner provides in her motion that she “has been
advised by counsel that a decision by the Chief Special Master dismissing the petition will
result in a judgment against” her and “will end all of [her] rights in the Vaccine Program
with regard to this claim.” Id. at 2. Respondent elected to file no response to Petitioner’s
Motion. See Informal Communication (Remark) dated November 17, 2023.
The Vaccine Act states that “[o]nly one petition may be filed with respect to each
administration of a vaccine.” Section 11(b)(2). As acknowledged by Petitioner, the instant
claim is essentially identical to a second Program claim filed by Petitioner relating to her
September 22, 2020 flu vaccination. Although, the instant claim was filed first, Petitioner
has already received compensation in the other claim. Romo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 21-1638V, 2023 WL 3596397, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2023) (Decision
Awarding Damages to Petitioner for a SIRVA following receipt of her flu vaccine on
September 22, 2020). Therefore, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine
Act, I find the instant case must be dismissed.
The instant case is hereby dismissed as a duplicative filing. 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