VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00529
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00529
Petitioner: Kathleen Cromwell
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-04-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-04
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kathleen Cromwell filed a petition alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 4, 2019. SIRVA is a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Her petition was filed on January 11, 2021. The respondent filed a report opposing compensation, disputing the severity and onset of the alleged injury. Later, Ms. Cromwell moved to dismiss her own petition, acknowledging she could not prove entitlement to compensation. She stated that proceeding further would be unreasonable and a waste of resources. Ms. Cromwell understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending her rights in the Vaccine Program, and she intended to elect to file a civil action instead. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove they received a covered vaccine and suffered either a Table injury or an injury actually caused by the vaccine, with residual effects lasting more than six months, death, or requiring hospitalization and surgery. The petition must also be supported by medical records or a medical opinion. In this case, the record lacked sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Cromwell suffered from SIRVA. Therefore, her motion to dismiss was granted, her claim was denied, and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00529-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/28/2024) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00529-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0529V
KATHLEEN CROMWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 28, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 11, 2021, Kathleen Cromwell 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury lasting more than six months, after
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 4, 2019. Petition (ECF No. 1).
On August 29, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation – disputing 1) severity and 2) onset of the alleged injury particularly in light
of Petitioner’s subsequent receipt of a separate non-covered vaccine. Rule 4(c) Report
(ECF No. 31).
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-00529-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 2
On February 28, 2024, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition
(ECF No. 36). In the motion, Petitioner acknowledged that “she will be unable to prove
that she is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 1) and “to
proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 2). Petitioner expressed her
understanding that “a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in
a judgment against her . . . [and] will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at
¶ 4. She indicated that she “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment
against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at ¶ 6.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that she
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine, a “non-Table
claim.” See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Additionally, for either a Table or non-Table
claim, a petitioner must establish that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more
than six months post-vaccination, died from the administration of the vaccine, or suffered
an injury which required an inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. Section
11(c)(1)(D). 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).
In this case, the record does not contain medical records or a medical opinion
sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner suffered from a SIRVA as alleged. For these
reasons, and in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED for
insufficient proof. 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.
2