VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00666
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00666
Petitioner: Anita Kliebert
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2025-12-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-05
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 12, 2021, Anita Kliebert filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 5, 2018 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The public orders identify her as an adult but do not state an exact age.

Special Master Dorsey dismissed the Table SIRVA claim on August 25, 2025 for failure to establish residual effects for more than six months. She then ordered Ms. Kliebert to show cause why the remaining causation-in-fact claim should not also be dismissed. On October 2, 2025, Ms. Kliebert moved for a decision dismissing the case, stating that she understood dismissal would be with prejudice and would result in judgment against her. On December 2, 2025, the Special Master dismissed the case. No injury compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine September 5, 2018; alleged SIRVA. DISMISSED. Table SIRVA dismissed August 25, 2025 for failure to establish six-month residual effects; petitioner then moved for dismissal of remaining causation-in-fact claim after show-cause order. SM Dorsey dismissed December 2, 2025. Petition filed January 12, 2021. No award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00666-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-30
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/25/2025) regarding 75 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Order to Show Cause. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-666V
ANITA KLIEBERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 25, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ramon Rodriguez, III, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Fact Finding Dismissing Table Claim and Order to Show Cause1
On January 12, 2021, Anita Kliebert 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 5, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner has not established that she
suffered a Table Claim. And because this same set of facts likely precludes any
causation-in-fact claim, the matter is appropriately dismissed in its entirety, unless
Petitioner can show cause why a non-Table claim would be tenable under the
circumstances.
1 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-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
On January 16, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation. ECF No. 66. Respondent argues that onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
was not within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 6-10. On February May 27, 2024, Petitioner
filed a motion for a ruling on the record in favor of finding entitlement. Petitioner’s Motion
for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 72. Respondent opposed the motion on June
26, 2024, reiterating the arguments set forth in the Rule 4(c) Report. Respondent’s
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 73. Petitioner
did not file a reply. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder on September 5, 2018. Ex.
16 at 2. For more than two months thereafter, Petitioner attended medical appointments
and contacted health care providers. These include a request for prescription medication
refills related to gastrointestinal condition (Ex. 7 at 1013-18), a visit with her gynecologist
(Ex. 3 at 23), communication related to osteopenia (Ex. 7 at 1026), communication
relating to measles vaccines prior to international travel (Ex. 7 at 1050), and a
mammogram (Ex. 7 at 1041). At no time in this period did she report shoulder pain
(although some of these treatment events did not reflect proper opportunities to do so).
On November 13, 2018, Petitioner saw her primary care provider reporting
intermittent shoulder pain “for a few months.” Ex. 7 at 1060. Her shoulder showed
tenderness and pain with resisted abduction. Id. at 1063. Petitioner was diagnosed with
a suspected shoulder sprain and referred to physical therapy. Id. at 1064.
Petitioner began physical therapy on November 15, 2018. Ex. 23 at 44. She now
reported that her pain began approximately six months prior (meaning in May), and had
progressively worsened. She also noticed her left arm was weaker than her right while at
the gym in February. Id. at 45. Petitioner did not attend additional physical therapy.
Four months later, on March 18, 2019, Petitioner saw an orthopedist with left
shoulder complaints that she said began in August 2018 (again, prior to vaccination). Ex.
17 at 116-17. An examination showed limited range of motion, and she was referred to
“aggressive” physical therapy. Id. at 118. Petitioner began physical therapy immediately
thereafter. Ex. 18 at 4. She noted her soreness and weakness began in the summer of
2

Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 3 of 7
2018 and progressively worsened. Id. She also showed reduced range of motion and
strength in her left shoulder. Id. Between March 18 and June 13, 2019, she attended thirty
physical therapy sessions. Id. at 4-37.
Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on April 15, 2019, with reports of significant
pain. Ex. 17 at 114-15. She was diagnosed with persistent frozen shoulder. Id. at 116. A
subsequent MRI showed acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, tendinosis, a partial low-grade
tear, and a labral tear. Id at 16. Petitioner ultimately underwent manipulation and
arthroscopic surgery of her left shoulder on November 13, 2019. Ex. 17 at 100-01. She
then attended twenty physical therapy sessions, being discharged on December 31,
2019. Ex. 20 at 5-45.
At her second follow-up with the orthopedist on December 21, 2019, Petitioner
stated that “[s]he thinks that her symptoms began about the time that she had a flu shot
in her shoulder.” Ex. 17 at 109. This was the first time any vaccine association was
proposed – and it occurred more than a year after vaccination. The treater noted that he
“certainly witnessed this in other patients in the past, and that may have been the cause.”
Id.
Petitioner has submitted two declarations in support of the Petition. Ex. 1, 2. She
states that her September 2018 vaccination hurt when administered, and that over the
following weeks she continued to experience pain and gradually began to lose mobility.
Id. at 1-2. She also reported pain immediately following her vaccination to Dr. Plaisance,
Dr. Plauche, and her physical therapist, however it was not noted in the records. Id. at 2,
3.
Richard Kliebert, Petitioner’s spouse, submitted a declaration in this matter. Ex. 2.
He states that she reported shoulder pain on September 5, 2018, after receiving the flu
vaccine, and continued to hurt over the next several weeks. Ex. 2 at 1. He assisted her in
icing and heating the shoulder for pain, and with helping her put on her jacket when asked.
Id. at 1.
Marc and Matthew Kliebert, Petitioner’s sons, submitted declarations in this matter
as well. Ex. 64, 65. They state that Petitioner complained of shoulder pain immediately
after vaccination that worsened throughout the fall of 2018. Ex. 64 at 1; Ex. 65 at 1.
Connie Mitchell, Petitioner’s friend, submitted a declaration in this matter. Ex. 66.
She states that Petitioner complained of shoulder pain throughout September and
October of 2018. Id. at 1-2. She also recalls Petitioner said “that the only thing that she
3

Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 4 of 7
had done differently to her left arm was to have gotten a flu shot from Walgreens and that
since then she had pain and worsening difficulty moving her left arm.” Id. at 2.
Lori Pizzuto, Petitioner’s neighbor, submitted a declaration in this matter. Ex. 67.
She states that after Petitioner receiving her flu shot on September 5, 2018, she told Ms.
Pizzuto “that the shot really hurt her arm.” Id. at 1.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which
case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination
she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A
vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests
all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 5 of 7
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion,
judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and
aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section
13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is
“consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the
individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that Petitioner cannot meet the SIRVA
requirement of pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B).
The most contemporary records variously place onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
in either February, May, August, or September of 2018. Petitioner first reported shoulder
5

Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 6 of 7
pain on November 13, 2018, ten weeks after her September 5, 2018 vaccination, when
she stated that she had shoulder pain “for a few months”. Ex. 7 at 1060. She next reported
shoulder pain to her physical therapist on November 15, 2018, but now stated that it
began six months earlier. Ex. 23 at 44. This would place onset of her pain in May 2018,
months before her vaccination. She also stated that she began to have shoulder problems
in February 2018, nearly six months before her September vaccination. Id. at 45.
Additionally, in May 2019 she stated her shoulder pain began in either August 2018 or
generally in the summer of 2018, again prior to her vaccination. Ex. 17 at 116-17; Ex. 18
at 4. Petitioner attempts to explain away this record evidence by stating in her affidavits
that she reported immediate pain following her vaccination to at least three medical
providers, but that they appear to have failed to note her statements in the records. Ex. 1
at 1-2. But this gainsaying of these contemporaneous records is not persuasive.
There is also the fact that Petitioner delayed treatment for her shoulder issues
(despite seeing any number of treaters in that initial gap period) – and greatly delayed
even reporting a vaccine-associated onset. It was not until December 2019, fifteen
months after her flu vaccine, that she ever reported that her symptoms began with
vaccination. Ex. 17 at 109. Given Petitioner’s vague and inconsistent onset reports and
failure to link the vaccination to onset of her pain, I find there is not preponderant evidence
that onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours
of vaccination.
B. No Causation Claim is Tenable Given the Evidence
In some cases, a claimant’s failure to meet the onset requirement for a Table
SIRVA does not preclude a causation-in-fact claim on the basis of the same evidence.
Onset that occurs a little outside the two-day timeframe can sometimes be linked to an
alternative injury. Or a claimant might be able to show a pre-vaccination onset reflected
an injury that the vaccine worsened.
Here, however, the record preponderates in favor of the conclusion that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain most likely began well before vaccination. See Ex. 23 at 44
(record describing shoulder pain beginning in May and weakness in February of 2018);
Ex. 17 at 116-17 (record stating shoulder pain began in either August of 2018 or generally
that summer). The treatment evidence from mid-November 2018 to mid-April 2019 all
feature Petitioner reporting onset before vaccination, and at an unspecified time as well.
She also did not inform treaters until 14 months post-vaccination that she associated
vaccination with her injury, and certainly did not do so when she first sought treatment in
November 2018. All of these records are far more deserving of evidentiary weight than
6

Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 76 Filed 09/30/25 Page 7 of 7
declarations and witness statements prepared after the fact, or treatment records more
attenuated temporally to vaccination.
Given these facts, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish her
shoulder pain was caused by her September 5, 2018, flu vaccine as the evidence
indicates her pain started before her vaccination.
Petitioner shall therefore show cause why her claim should not be dismissed in its
entirety. I will thereafter determine if this claim can continue. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of Petitioner’s claim. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439
(1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 21(b).
Conclusion
Because Petitioner has failed to meet the QAI requirements for a Table
SIRVA I must DISMISS her Table claim.
Additionally, Petitioner shall show cause why her causation-in-fact claim
should not be dismissed. She shall file any additional evidence needed by no later
than September 24, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00666-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-01-07
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/02/2025) regarding 80 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00666-UNJ Document 81 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-666V
ANITA KLIEBERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 2, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ramon Rodriguez, III, Siri & Blimstad LLP, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1
On January 12, 2021, Anita Kliebert 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 5, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 25, 2025, I dismissed Petitioner’s SIRVA Table case for failure to
establish that her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of her vaccination, as required
to establish a SIRVA Table claim. In addition, I found that the evidence strongly was
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-00666-UNJ Document 81 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2
unsupportive of any causation-in-fact claim as well, and therefore ordered Petitioner to
Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed in its entirety. ECF No. 75.
On October 2, 2025, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating
that the Court “has demonstrated to Petitioner that it is unlikely she would prove
entitlement to compensation in an off-table vaccine injury claim….” ECF No. 77. Petitioner
further states that she understand that a “dismissal of this case will be with prejudice, will
result in a final judgement… and that such judgment will end all her rights in the Vaccine
Program for the instant vaccine injury claim.” Id. at 1-2.
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). 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 his 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).
But examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence to establish that
Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” And the same record does not contain a medical
expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence supporting the conclusion 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, 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 was injured
by a vaccine.
For these reasons, in accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b) and Section
12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act, 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