VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00415
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00415
Petitioner: Christina Tibbs
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2025-08-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Christina Tibbs filed a petition alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine she received on September 26, 2019. She filed her petition with the Court of Federal Claims on January 8, 2021. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, contested entitlement, arguing that Ms. Tibbs failed to demonstrate that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination and that the pain was limited to the vaccinated shoulder. The court initially presumed the case might be resolved quickly, but the respondent filed a report contesting entitlement. Following a scheduling order, Ms. Tibbs' counsel reported that he was unable to contact his client despite repeated efforts over the past year. Consequently, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, warning that failure to respond would lead to dismissal. Ms. Tibbs did not respond to this order, nor did her counsel appear to be able to contact her. The court found that the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case, including her failure to respond to court orders and communicate with counsel, justified dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute on August 25, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00415-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/25/2025) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00415-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-415V
UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTINA TIBBS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 25, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David J. Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On January 8, 2021, Christina Tibbs 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 26, 2019. Petition at 1.
This matter was assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” based on the initial
presumption that it presented issues that were likely to be resolved expeditiously. On
January 19, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report contesting entitlement in this case.
Respondent’s Report at 1 (ECF No. 26). Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate that onset of her alleged shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination, and that the records reflect that Petitioner’s pain and reduced range of motion
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 1:21-vv-00415-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 3
were not limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered. Id. at 7-8. With
respect to onset, Respondent contends that Petitioner did not report her shoulder pain
until over three months after vaccination, despite seeking care and treatment for several
other concerns in the interim. Rule 4(c) Report at 7.
After Respondent filed his Report, I issued a scheduling order on October 2, 2023.
(ECF No. 27). I ordered Petitioner to file “any additional evidence supporting Petitioner
met the six-month severity requirement, that onset occurred within 48 hours, and that
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her vaccinated shoulder, and a statement of completion”
and that if there was no additional evidence to submit, Petitioner should indicate as much
in a status report. Id. at 1.
On February 27, 2024, Petitioner filed a status report. (ECF No. 29). In it,
Petitioner’s counsel represented that his client has been unresponsive to repeated
emails, phone calls and letters over the last year, and therefore counsel had been unable
to file the requisite additional medical records and/or evidence relating to causation
elements or adhere to the Court’s Scheduling Orders. Id. at 1. Counsel then requested
the Court issue a Show Cause Order so that he could forward it to Petitioner’s last known
mailing address. Id.
On March 4, 2025, I issued an Order to Show Cause which ordered Petitioner to
show why her claim should not be dismissed along with any records supporting of her
claim and bearing on the aforementioned issues. (ECF No. 31). The order also indicated
that “failure to respond to this order would be interpreted as either an inability to provide
supporting documentation for this claim or as a failure to prosecute and the claim may be
dismissed.” Id. Petitioner was given until April 21, 2025, to make this showing. However,
Petitioner did not file anything.
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. 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
2

Case 1:21-vv-00415-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/25/25 Page 3 of 3
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 March 2025 Order that if documentation
was not provided by April 21, 2025, her claim would be dismissed. But Petitioner did not
make the required filing. This is not surprising, as Petitioner’s Counsel had previously
noted that he could not contact Petitioner despite due effort. Nor does it appear that
counsel was able to communicate with Petitioner following the issuance of the Show
Cause Order. Therefore, dismissal of the petition on grounds of failure to prosecute are
justified in this case.
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed respond to the Order
to Show Cause issued on March 4, 2025. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure
to prosecute. The Clerk of Court 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