VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00934
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00934
Petitioner: G.G.
Filed: 2021-02-16
Decided: 2023-09-13
Vaccine: human papillomavirus
Vaccination date: 2019-11-14
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Claudia Garcia filed a petition on February 16, 2021, on behalf of her minor child, G.G., alleging that G.G. suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a human papillomavirus vaccine on November 14, 2019. The petition was filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petitioner initially filed a declaration but did not provide supporting medical records or details regarding the duration of the alleged injury. On February 19, 2021, an order required the petitioner to file necessary documentation. Petitioner's counsel reported difficulties contacting the petitioner, stating they had been unable to reach her for extended periods despite repeated attempts via email, certified mail, and telephone calls. On August 2, 2022, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, noting that the petitioner had been unresponsive to counsel for approximately two years and had not provided medical records or a complete PAR Questionnaire. The order was sent to the petitioner by certified mail but was returned unclaimed. The petitioner did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Citing precedent regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute, violation of court orders, and lack of communication with counsel, Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the case on September 13, 2023, for failure to prosecute. No compensation was awarded. Petitioner's counsel was Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
The petitioner alleged that the minor, G.G., suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a human papillomavirus vaccine received on November 14, 2019. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, medical experts, or detailed clinical facts supporting the theory of causation. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute due to the petitioner's inability to be contacted by counsel and failure to provide required documentation and respond to court orders, rather than a determination on the merits of the alleged injury or its causation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the dismissal on September 13, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Leigh Finfer, and respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00934-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-13
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/16/2023) regarding 17 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00934-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-934V
UNPUBLISHED
CLAUDIA GARCIA, parent and natural Chief Special Master Corcoran
guardian of G.G., a minor,
Filed: August 16, 2023
Petitioner,
v. Show cause; failure to prosecute;
human papillomavirus (HPV)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On February 16, 2021, Claudia Garcia filed a petition for compensation on behalf
of her minor child, G.G., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42
U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that G.G.
suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration from a human papillomavirus
vaccine G.G. received on November 14, 2019. ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s failure to
prosecute her claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed a declaration with the petition but did not file any other supporting
documents. The declaration did not address the duration of G.G.’s shoulder injury.
Exhibit 1. On February 19, 2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file
medical records and other statutorily required supporting documentation. ECF No. 5.
On August 2, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report indicating that she
“has not been able to make contact with Petitioner despite repeated emails, certified
mail correspondence and telephone calls. Petitioner's counsel does not currently have
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00934-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 3
authority from Petitioner to move to dismiss the case.” ECF No. 7. The August 12, 2021
order required counsel to provide more details on when and for how long she has been
attempting to contact Petitioner. ECF No. 8.
On October 12, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report advising that she
made contact with Petitioner on September 16, 2021, and is in the process of obtaining
medical records. ECF No. 9. Counsel requested 90 days to file the outstanding medical
records and Statement of Completion. A due date was then set.
On January 11, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report requesting an
additional 90 days to obtain and file the outstanding medical records. ECF No. 11. A
new due date was set.
On May 16, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time
requesting an additional 60 days to file the outstanding medical records and advising
that she “struggled to contact Petitioner for the better part of one (1) year but has since
recently made contact.” ECF No. 12. The motion for extension of time was granted.
On July 15, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report indicating that her
“recent filings have detailed counsel’s difficulties contacting Petitioner. Petitioner is
again unresponsive despite certified mail correspondence, telephone calls and emails
for the better part of two (2) years. Counsel for Petitioner filed this claim while facing a
pending legislation claim but has no medical records and an incomplete PAR
Questionnaire.” ECF No. 13.
On August 2, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 14. On August 23, 2022, counsel filed a
document indicating that the Order to Show Cause had been sent to Petitioner by
certified mail. ECF No. 15. On September 12, 2022, the Clerk’s Office docketed that the
Order to Show Cause served on Petitioner by the Court had been returned because it
was “unclaimed, unable to forward.” ECF No. 16. 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
2

Case 1:21-vv-00934-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 3
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 2, 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 July 2022. 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.”
3