VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00520
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00520
Petitioner: Juan Ortiz
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-06-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-19
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Juan Ortiz filed a petition alleging he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 19, 2018. He filed his petition with the Court of Federal Claims on January 11, 2021. After reviewing the case, Mr. Ortiz moved for a decision dismissing his petition, acknowledging that he lacked sufficient evidence to prove entitlement to compensation. He stated that an investigation of the facts and science supporting his case demonstrated he would be unable to prove entitlement. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that a covered vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not disclose evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it demonstrate that the alleged injury was vaccine-caused, as it lacked persuasive medical expert opinion or other evidence. The court also noted that the record did not contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate entitlement. Consequently, the Chief Special Master denied Mr. Ortiz's claim and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, resulting in a judgment against him.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00520-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/30/2024) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00520-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0520V
JUAN ORTIZ,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: April 30, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On January 11, 2021, Juan Ortiz 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September
19, 2018. Petition3 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. The information in the record does not show entitlement to an
award under the Program.
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).
3 On December 9, 2021, Petitioner filed an amended petition with additional information and citations to
the record. ECF No. 14.

Case 1:21-vv-00520-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 2
On April 29, 2024, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition,
acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
compensation. (ECF No. 38). Petitioner indicated in his motion that “[a]n investigation of
the facts and science supporting his case has demonstrated to petitioner that he will be
unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. Petitioner
further indicated that he “understands that a decision by the [undersigned] dismissing his
petition will result in a judgment against him. [He] has been advised that such a judgment
will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record
does not disclose any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the
record does not demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effect of his injury for
more than six months nor does it contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other
persuasive evidence indicating that Petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
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. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled
to compensation. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s
claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for insufficient proof.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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