VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00649
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00649
Petitioner: Mary Grace Ferreira
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2024-09-25
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-06-27
Condition: right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Mary Grace Ferreira filed a petition alleging a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a Tdap vaccine received on June 27, 2019. The petition was filed on January 12, 2021. After the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report, the court issued an Order to Show Cause due to the petitioner's failure to establish the six-month severity requirement. In response, Ms. Ferreira filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, stating that further investigation showed she could not prove entitlement to compensation. She acknowledged that proceeding would be unreasonable and waste resources. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record lacked sufficient evidence for either, including medical records or a medical expert's opinion to demonstrate a vaccine-caused injury. Consequently, the court denied Ms. Ferreira's claim and dismissed the case for insufficient proof. Judgment was to be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00649-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/13/2024) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00649-UNJ Document 48 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-649V
MARY GRACE FERREIRA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 13, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 12, 2021, Mary Grace Ferreira 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 alleges that she suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) due to a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine she received on June 27, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1.
Following Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and a review of the record, I issued an
Order to Show Cause for Petitioner’s failure to establish the six-month severity
requirement. ECF Nos. 40-41. In response to my Order, Petitioner ultimately filed a
Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition. ECF Nos. 42-45. In her Motion, Petitioner
indicated that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has
1 Because this Ruling 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 Ruling 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-00649-UNJ Document 48 Filed 09/25/24 Page 2 of 2
demonstrated to [P]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program.” ECF No. 45 ¶ 1. She stated that to “proceed
further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. ¶ 2. Petitioner further indicated that she
“understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a
judgment against her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights
in the Vaccine Program.” Id. ¶ 3.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the
record does not disclose preponderant evidence that Petitioner suffered her alleged injury
for at least six-months or a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not 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. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was
injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A),
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for
insufficient proof.
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