VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00718
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00718
Petitioner: Edna Beebe
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2023-09-13
Vaccine: influenza (flu)
Vaccination date: 2020-09-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Edna Beebe filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 12, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on September 30, 2020. She did not file any supporting documents with her initial petition. The court issued an order requiring her to file medical records and other documentation. Her counsel repeatedly attempted to contact Ms. Beebe to complete the necessary steps but was unsuccessful, indicating he had been unable to communicate with her since November 2020. The court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, which was served on Ms. Beebe. As she failed to respond or provide any justification, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The decision does not specify an award amount or detail the theory of causation, as the case was dismissed procedurally.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00718-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-13
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/16/2023) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00718-UNJ Document 17 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-718V
UNPUBLISHED
EDNA BEEBE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 16, 2023
v.
Show cause; failure to prosecute;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND influenza (flu) vaccine; Shoulder
HUMAN SERVICES, Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
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, Edna Beebe 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration from an influenza vaccine she received on September 30, 2020.
ECF No. 1. Petitioner did not file any supporting documents with her petition. Due to
Petitioner’s failure to prosecute her claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
On February 9, 2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file
medical records and other statutorily required supporting documentation. ECF No. 5.
In Petitioner’s third motion for extension of time filed on June 21, 2021,
Petitioner’s counsel indicated he had “made several attempts to contact Petitioner in
order to complete the PAR process and file a Statement of Completion, but has been
unsuccessful.” ECF No. 8. Counsel requested additional time to contact Petitioner and
complete the PAR process before seeking dismissal of this case.
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-00718-UNJ Document 17 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 3
After no further exhibits or motions were filed, an order issued on February 18,
2022, requiring Petitioner to provide an update on her efforts to obtain the outstanding
documents. ECF No. 10.
On March 22, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report indicating that he
“has been attempting to complete this Court’s PAR process, but has encountered
unforeseen delays” and “seeks the Court’s guidance with how to best proceed under the
current circumstances.” ECF No. 11. Via informal communications, an OSM Staff
Attorney explained to counsel the current procedures for handling vaccine cases where
the petitioner has become unresponsive to her attorney.
On July 25, 2022, counsel filed a status report indicating that he has been unable
to communicate with Petitioner since he had been retained on November 18, 2020. ECF
No. 12. Counsel detailed the numerous attempts to contact Petitioner.
On August 31, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 13. On September 21, 2022, counsel
indicated that the Order to Show Cause had been served on Petitioner and filed a
signed certified mail receipt. ECF No. 14. On October 5, 2022, the Clerk’s Office
docketed that a certified mail receipt for the Order to Show Cause served on Petitioner
by the Court. ECF No. 15. The show cause deadline passed without any response from
Petitioner.
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 31, 2022 Order to Show Cause
that failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure to communicate with her
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 her counsel since November 2020. Because Petitioner has continued to disregard
my orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00718-UNJ Document 17 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 3
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.”
3