VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00492
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00492
Petitioner: Sydney Griggs
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-11-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-13
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Sydney Griggs filed a petition on January 11, 2021, alleging a Table Injury – Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) – as a result of his October 13, 2020 influenza vaccine. The case was initially in the Pre-Assignment Unit, and Petitioner submitted some records in March 2023. Despite multiple extensions, Petitioner failed to file a statement of completion and other required documentation. The case was reassigned to the Special Processing Unit in April 2024 with an order to submit outstanding documentation within sixty days, a deadline which Petitioner missed. After further extensions and a motion indicating he needed time to determine how to proceed, an Order to Show Cause was issued on August 26, 2024, warning that the claim could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner responded by filing an unsigned personal narrative and a motion to dismiss his own petition. The Chief Special Master granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Petitioner failed to prosecute his claim and disregarded court orders without justification. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00492-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-08
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/08/2024) regarding 41 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00492-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-492V
SYDNEY GRIGGS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 8, 2024
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.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On January 11, 2021, Sydney Griggs 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 he suffered a Table Injury – Shoulder Injury Related
to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) – as a result of his October 13, 2020 influenza (“flu”)
vaccine. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of
the Office of Special Masters.
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00492-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 3
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted above, the case was initiated in January 2021. While this case was still
in the Pre-Assignment (“PAR”) Unit, following several motions for extensions of time,
Petitioner submitted his vaccination record, medical records, and an affidavit in March
2023. ECF Nos. 6-9, 11-26. I subsequently directed Petitioner to file the required PAR
Medical History Questionnaire, any remaining outstanding medical records, and a
statement of completion. Non-PDF Order, docketed Mar. 29, 2023. Petitioner thereafter
submitted three additional motions for extensions of time to file the outstanding
information in support of his claim, which were granted. ECF Nos. 27-29.
In July 2023, I issued an Order noting that Petitioner “has not yet filed a statement
of completion to indicate that all documents required by the Vaccine Act have been filed.”
ECF No. 30. I warned Petitioner that “[d]ue to the amount of time that this case has been
pending in PAR, this case will be granted one final extension of time before being
reassigned for further proceedings.” Id. In response, Petitioner filed a motion for extension
of time. ECF No. 31.
This case was then activated and reassigned to the SPU on April 17, 2024, along
with an Order for Petitioner to submit the outstanding documentation within sixty days.
ECF No. 32. Petitioner subsequently missed this deadline. After an extension of his
deadline, Petitioner filed another motion for extension of time, stating he “require[d]
additional time to comply with the aforementioned Order[;]” the motion was granted. ECF
No. 35; Non-PDF Order, docketed July 8, 2024. On August 19, 2024, Petitioner filed an
additional motion for extension of time, reporting he “require[d] additional time to
determine how he intends to proceed.” ECF No. 36.
On August 26, 2024, after a review of the record, I issued an Order to Show Cause,
instructing Petitioner to file a response to my Order explaining why his claim should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and to provide the other information in regard to his
claim by no later than October 10, 2024. Order to Show Cause at 3, ECF No. 37. In
response, Petitioner filed an unsigned “personal narrative” and a motion for a decision
dismissing his petition. ECF Nos. 38, 40.
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
grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct.
439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam), (“[c]ontrolling precedent
2

Case 1:21-vv-00492-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 3
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 & Hum. 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 August 26, 2024 Order to Show Cause,
that his failure to follow orders issued in this matter risked dismissal of the claim. Because
Petitioner has disregarded my orders, without justification or explanation as to the
outstanding records and documentation in support of his claim, dismissal is now
appropriate. Additionally, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded
compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be
supported by either the medical records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1).
III. Conclusion
Petitioner has failed to prosecute his claim. He has failed to provide the information
necessary to proceed with his claim or otherwise respond to my August 26, 2024 Order
to Show Cause.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED and 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