VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00708 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00708 Petitioner: Mark West Filed: 2021-01-12 Decided: 2024-07-01 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Mark West filed a petition on January 12, 2021, alleging that he received an influenza vaccine in November 2019 and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). On July 1, 2024, Mr. West filed a motion to dismiss his own petition, stating he would be unable to prove his entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He acknowledged that a dismissal would result in a judgment against him and end all his rights in the program. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" listed in the Vaccine Injury Table corresponding to a covered vaccine, or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The Special Master noted that the record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury. Furthermore, the record lacked a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the vaccine caused Mr. West's alleged injury. The Special Master emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded based solely on a petitioner's claims; the petition must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion. As the record did not contain sufficient medical records or a medical opinion to demonstrate a vaccine-related injury, the Special Master denied the claim and dismissed the case for insufficient proof, ordering judgment against Mr. West. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. Petitioner counsel was Jonathan Joseph Svitak of Shannon Law Group, P.C., and respondent counsel was Catherine Elizabeth Stolar of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Mark West alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine in November 2019. The case was dismissed upon Petitioner's motion for decision dismissing his petition, as he stated he could not prove entitlement to compensation. To be compensated, Petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, nor does it name any medical experts. The record lacked evidence of a Table Injury and did not contain sufficient medical records or expert opinions to demonstrate that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision denying compensation and dismissing the case for insufficient proof. Petitioner counsel was Jonathan Joseph Svitak, and respondent counsel was Catherine Elizabeth Stolar. The decision date was July 1, 2024. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00708-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-16 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/09/2024) regarding 41 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-00708-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-708V MARK WEST, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 9, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On January 12, 2021, Mark West 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 he received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in November of 2019, and thereafter suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. On July 1, 2024, the Petitioner filed a motion for Decision Dismissing His Petition in the above-captioned case. ECF No. 40. Petitioner acknowledged that he will be unable to 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-00708-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 2 prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. Petitioner further indicated that he “understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment against him. He has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered 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. § 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, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and 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.