VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00670
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00670
Petitioner: Sharon Laulicht
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2024-09-26
Vaccine: pneumococcal conjugate
Vaccination date: 2019-04-30
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Sharon Laulicht filed a petition on January 12, 2021, alleging a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Initially, she stated the vaccination occurred on March 6, 2020. However, after evidence indicated she had not received a pneumococcal vaccine in 2020, she amended her petition to allege the vaccination occurred on April 30, 2019. The public decision does not describe the specific type of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or provide details about the petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel. Laulicht was 72 years old at the time of the alleged April 2019 vaccination. She did not seek treatment for her shoulder pain until approximately 15 months after the vaccination, on July 28, 2020, at which time she reported the pain had started about a year prior. The Special Master noted that Laulicht suffered from pre-existing osteoarthritis and pain in multiple locations, making it likely her shoulder pain was due to unrelated causes. The Special Master also noted that Laulicht failed to provide an updated declaration or explain the initial incorrect vaccination date. The public decision does not describe any specific symptoms, diagnostic studies, or treatments related to the alleged injury. The Special Master issued multiple orders for Laulicht to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to prosecute. Laulicht failed to respond to these orders or provide preponderant evidence to support her claim. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, concluded that Laulicht failed to provide preponderant evidence to support her allegation of a Table SIRVA or that the vaccine caused her injury. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence and failure to prosecute. The public decision does not mention any specific expert witnesses or detail the specific reasoning for the dismissal beyond the lack of evidence and failure to prosecute. No award amount was granted as the case was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sharon Laulicht alleged a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, initially stating the date as March 6, 2020, and later amending to April 30, 2019. She was 72 years old at the time of the alleged vaccination. The alleged injury, SIRVA, is a Table injury. However, petitioner did not seek treatment for shoulder pain until approximately 15 months after the April 2019 vaccination, reporting onset about a year prior. The Special Master noted pre-existing osteoarthritis and pain in multiple locations, suggesting the shoulder pain was likely due to unrelated causes. Petitioner failed to provide preponderant evidence to support her claim or respond to multiple orders to show cause. The public decision does not name any experts, describe a specific medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury, or detail a logical sequence of cause and effect. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 26, 2024, for insufficient evidence and failure to prosecute. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00670-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/27/2024) regarding 41 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00670-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0670V
SHARON LAULICHT,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 27, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Julianna Rose Kober, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On January 12, 2021, Sharon Laulicht 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving a pneumococcal
conjugate vaccine on March 6, 2020. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 18; see also Exhibit 1 at ¶ 1, filed
June 28, 2021, ECF 9-1 (Petitioner’s sworn declaration3). However, after the evidence
showed that Petitioner had not received a pneumococcal vaccine in 2020, she filed an
amended petition alleging the vaccination had actually occurred earlier, on April 30, 2019.
Amended Petition at ¶ 2, filed Dec. 20, 2023, ECF No. 33. She did not, however, provide
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 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 1.

Case 1:21-vv-00670-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/26/24 Page 2 of 5
an updated declaration or explain why she initially provided an incorrect date of
vaccination.
I later noted substantial deficiencies in Petitioner’s amended assertions. ECF No.
36. Petitioner did not seek treatment for or complain of right shoulder pain after her
purported April 2019 vaccination until almost 15 months later. Exhibit 8 at 11-13. And at
that July 28, 2020 visit, she reported pain that started about a year before, recalling that
she had received some type of intramuscular injection near the time of pain onset. Id. at
11. This vague suggestion from Petitioner of a possible causal connection with a
vaccination given three months earlier, expressed more than a year after onset, did not
appear sufficient to support her claim.
Additionally, Petitioner was 72 years old at the time of vaccination, and suffered
from osteoarthritis and pain in multiple locations such as her right knee. See, e.g., Exhibit
2 at 28-31, 36, 40, 56, 60-61, 72; Exhibit 8 at 14-15, 23. Thus, I considered it likely that
Petitioner’s right shoulder pain was due to unrelated causes such as osteoarthritis and
degenerative changes, as opposed to the vaccine she received several months before
the onset of her symptoms.
I therefore ordered Petitioner to show cause why the claim should not be
dismissed. But Petitioner has not responded, or filed any additional evidence that would
resolve these factual deficiencies, or even establish legitimately-disputed fact questions.
Applicable Legal Standards
Under Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that all requirements for a petition set forth in section
11(c)(1) have been satisfied. A petitioner may prevail on her claim if the vaccinee for
whom she seeks compensation has “sustained, or endured the significant aggravation of
any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table).
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). According to the most recent version of the 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). The specific criteria establishing a SIRVA are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
2

Case 1:21-vv-00670-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/26/24 Page 3 of 5
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). 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
(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) (additional requirements set forth in the Qualifications and Aids
to Interpretations (“QAI”)). If a petitioner establishes that the vaccinee has suffered a
“Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
If, however, the vaccinee suffered an injury that either is not listed in the Table or
did not occur within the prescribed time frame, petitioner must prove that the administered
vaccine caused injury to receive Program compensation on behalf of the vaccinee.
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii). In such circumstances, petitioner asserts a “non-Table or
[an] off-Table” claim and to prevail, petitioner must prove her claim by preponderant
evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or
‘more probable than not’ causation.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279-80 (referencing Hellebrand
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 999 F.2d 1565, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal
Circuit has held that to establish an off-Table injury, petitioners must “prove . . . that the
vaccine was not only a but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing
about the injury.” Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir 1999). Id. at 1352. The received vaccine, however, need not be the predominant
cause of the injury. Id. at 1351.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that petitioners “must show ‘a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that the vaccine was a
3

Case 1:21-vv-00670-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/26/24 Page 4 of 5
substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting
Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Circuit
added that "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. The Federal Circuit subsequently reiterated
these requirements in its Althen decision. See 418 F.3d at 1278. Althen requires a
petitioner
to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination
brought about her injury by providing: (1) a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a
logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing
of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.
Id. All three prongs of Althen must be satisfied. Id.
Finding a petitioner is entitled to compensation must not be “based on the claims
of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section
13(a)(1). Further, contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be accurate and
complete in their recording of all relevant information as to petitioner’s medical issues.
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993, F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Testimony offered after the events in questions is considered less reliable than
contemporaneous reports because the need for accurate explanation of symptoms is
more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993).
Conclusion
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide
preponderant evidence to support her allegation of a right shoulder injury that meets the
definition for a Table SIRVA or was caused by a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
administered in April 2019 (or even the following year, as initially alleged). She has also
failed to file a response to the third Order to Show Cause that I have issued in this case.
ECF No. 40. On three occasions, Petitioner was informed that failure to provide
preponderant evidence to support her claim would be treated as either a failure to
prosecute this claim or as an inability to provide supporting documentation for the claim.
ECF Nos. 31, 36, 40.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00670-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/26/24 Page 5 of 5
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient evidence and failure to
prosecute. The Clerk of Court 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.
5