VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00915
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00915
Petitioner: Colleen Marie Medlock
Filed: 2021-02-11
Decided: 2025-08-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-01
Condition: bursitis and impingement syndrome of the right shoulder (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 11, 2021, Colleen Marie Medlock filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 1, 2018 caused bursitis and impingement syndrome of the right shoulder, framed as a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

The public dismissal decision is brief and does not include a detailed treatment timeline, imaging discussion, or expert analysis. The case was dismissed on August 28, 2025, without an award of compensation. The record therefore supports the vaccine, alleged condition, procedural outcome, and decision date, but not a fuller public clinical story.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on October 1, 2018, adult exact age not stated, alleged right shoulder bursitis/impingement/SIRVA. DISMISSED. Public dismissal decision gives limited clinical detail and no expert analysis; no compensation awarded. Chief Special Master Corcoran, August 28, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00915-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/28/25) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00915-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/22/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 28, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COLLEEN MARIE MEDLOCK, *
* Special Master Young
Petitioner, *
v. * No. 21-915V
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Renee J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington Univ. Law School, Washington, DC
for Petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On February 11, 2021, Colleen Marie Medlock (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that the
administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 1, 2018, caused her to suffer
“a Table Injury of bursitis and impingement syndrome of the right shoulder (Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration), which was caused-in-fact by the administration of the
vaccine.” Id.
On August 28, 2025, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
petition. ECF No. 43. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts and
science has demonstrated to the Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that [s]he is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. She continued, “to proceed any further would
be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the [R]espondent, and the Vaccine
Program.” Id. Petitioner acknowledged judgment will result against her and she intends to elect
1Because 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 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or “the Program”). Hereafter, individual section references
will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:21-vv-00915-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/22/25 Page 2 of 2
to reject judgment to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner
understood she may file for attorneys’ fees and costs once her case is dismissed and judgment is
entered. Id. at 1. Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent expressly reserves the right to
challenge whether this claim was timely filed and to oppose, if appropriate, Petitioner’s
application for fees and costs. Id. at 1–2. Respondent otherwise does not oppose Petitioner’s
current motion. Id. at 2.
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 the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was caused by a vaccine. See §§
13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). The Chief Special Master issued a ruling dismissing Petitioner’s Table
claim. ECF No. 38. The record does not contain persuasive evidence that Petitioner’s alleged
injury was caused by the flu vaccine.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s
claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this
case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Herbrina D. S. Young
Herbrina D. S. Young
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2