VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00656
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00656
Petitioner: Ruth Hill
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2025-08-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-17
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Ruth Hill filed a petition alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine she received on November 17, 2020. She claimed pain and impairment lasting longer than six months. The respondent argued that the injury did not persist for the statutorily required six months, that pain onset was not within 48 hours of vaccination, and that a viable alternative cause was not established. The court ordered Ms. Hill to provide additional evidence of severity or show cause why her claim should not be dismissed. In response, Ms. Hill moved to dismiss her own petition, acknowledging her inability to prove entitlement to compensation, specifically the severity requirement. She stated that proceeding further would be unreasonable and a waste of resources. The court granted her motion, finding that the record lacked sufficient evidence of severity and that Ms. Hill had not demonstrated her symptoms continued for more than six months. Consequently, her claim was denied and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00656-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-26
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/11/2025 ) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00656-UNJ Document 49 Filed 08/26/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0656V
RUTH HILL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 11, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 12, 2021, Ruth Hill filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”).3 Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, caused by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine
she received on November 17, 2020. Second Amended Petition, filed Sept. 1, 2023, at 1,
¶¶ 3, 18, 24. She further alleged that she suffered from “pain and impairment for a period
of time that has lasted much longer than six months.” Id. at ¶ 18.
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 February 21 and September 1, 2023, Petitioner filed amended petitions with additional detail and
medical records citation. ECF Nos. 29, 38.

Case 1:21-vv-00656-UNJ Document 49 Filed 08/26/25 Page 2 of 3
On February 2, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation. ECF No. 44. Emphasizing Petitioner’s last treatment in February 2021
(slightly more than three months post-vaccination), and evidence that shoulder symptoms
Petitioner experienced more than two years later was not vaccine-related, Respondent
argued that the “information in total indicates that [P]etitioner’s alleged vaccine-related
injury, more likely than not, did not persist for the statutorily-required six months.” Id. at
11; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (Vaccine Act’s severity requirement for cases not involving
death or inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention). Additionally, Respondent
insisted that Petitioner has failed to establish pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination,
and the lack of a viable alternative cause as required for a Table SIRVA. Rule 4(c) Report
at 11-13; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)XIV(B) (required symptom onset for SIRVA following
receipt of the flu vaccine) & (c)(10) (ii) & (iv) (Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
criteria related to pain onset and a viable alternative cause) (2017).
On May 30, 2025, I ordered Petitioner to provide the additional evidence needed
to establish the required severity, or to otherwise show cause why her claim should not
be dismissed. ECF No 45. In response, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 46. In the motion, Petitioner acknowledged that “she will be unable to
prove that she is entitled to compensation in 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
¶ 3. She indicated that she “reserves the right to elect to reject the Vaccine Program
judgment against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at ¶ 5.
Vaccine Rule 21(b) provides that I may dismiss a petition or any claim therein at
the request of Petitioner, on terms that I consider proper, by issuance of a decision
pursuant to Section 12(d)(3). Here, Petitioner requests such a dismissal, based upon her
assessment of her inability to meet an evidentiary element for compensation - the Vaccine
Act’s severity requirement, which applies to both Table and non-Table claims. See
Section 11(c)(1)(D). But examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence
of severity. And the same record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other
persuasive evidence supporting the conclusion that Petitioner’s symptoms continued for
more than six months.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, a 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 has satisfied
2

Case 1:21-vv-00656-UNJ Document 49 Filed 08/26/25 Page 3 of 3
the severity requirement, specifically that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for
more than six months 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.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.
3