VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00691
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00691
Petitioner: Darrick Northington
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2023-11-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Darrick Northington filed a petition for compensation on January 12, 2021, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on September 26, 2020. The court issued an order on February 8, 2021, requiring the petitioner to file supporting documentation, which was not done. Petitioner's counsel filed a status report on February 14, 2023, stating they had been unable to communicate with Mr. Northington since October 16, 2020, despite numerous attempts. On August 28, 2023, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. No response was filed by the due date. The court noted that failure to prosecute, including failure to communicate with counsel and comply with court orders, is grounds for dismissal. As Mr. Northington continued to disregard court orders without justification, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on November 28, 2023.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00691-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/1/2023) regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00691-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-691V
UNPUBLISHED
DARRICK NORTHINGTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 1, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan J. Svitak, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 12, 2021, Darrick Northington filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through
342 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration from an influenza vaccine he received on September 26, 2020.
ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s failure to prosecute his claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner did not file any supporting documents with his petition. On February 8,
2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file medical records and other
statutorily required supporting documentation. ECF No. 5.
On February 14, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report indicating that he
has been unable to communicate with Petitioner since he had been retained on October
16, 2020. ECF No. 23. Counsel detailed numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact
Petitioner.
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-00691-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/28/23 Page 2 of 2
On August 28, 2023, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 24. The due date has passed but no
response has been filed.
Grounds for Dismissal
It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and respond to orders issued by a special
master in a case. The failure to do so – whether on account of attorney error, inaction,
or because a petitioner has failed to stay in contact and/or communicate with counsel -
is grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
638 Fed. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam), (“[c]ontrolling
precedent considers dismissal appropriate when failure to act is deemed willful, when it
is in violation of court orders, when it is repeated, and when clear warning is given that
the sanction will be imposed”); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed.
Cl. 503 (1996) (“[n]ot only did petitioner fail to meet the court's . . . . deadline, but he
also ignored the chief special master's ‘warning’ order, clearly placing petitioner on
notice that failure to respond to the court's order . . . , would result in dismissal of the
claim. The chief special master clearly did not abuse his discretion in dismissing this
case for failure to prosecute”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b) (“[t]he special master or the
court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of the petitioner to prosecute
or comply with these rules or any order of the special master or the court.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in the August 28, 2023 Order to Show Cause
that failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure to communicate with his
counsel which prevents compliance with those order) risked dismissal of the claim. As
noted in the response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner has been out-of-touch
with his counsel since October 2020. Because Petitioner has continued to disregard my
orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, he must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
2