VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01368
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01368
Petitioner: Hope Masao
Filed: 2021-05-17
Decided: 2023-11-22
Vaccine: hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2017-12-18
Condition: Sjogren’s syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Hope Masao filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 17, 2021, alleging she developed Sjogren’s syndrome from a series of hepatitis B vaccinations received on July 24, 2017, an unspecified date, and December 18, 2017. The case was complicated by her counsel's failure to complete the required attorney admissions process for the Court of Federal Claims Bar, despite numerous attempts by court staff over two years. The court noted that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations, as symptoms were reported approximately two weeks after each vaccination, with the last vaccination on December 18, 2017, meaning the claim should have been filed by January 2021. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to respond to an Order to Show Cause regarding the statute of limitations and had not prosecuted the case for over two years. Due to the untimeliness of the filing and the failure to prosecute the case, the petition was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01368-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-22
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/24/2023) regarding 9 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01368-UNJ Document 10 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1368V
UNPUBLISHED
HOPE MASAO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 24, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Martha L. Berry, Longstreet & Berry, LLP, Fayetteville, NY, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On May 17, 2021, Hope Masao 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 developed Sjogren’s syndrome, among
other injuries, from a series of hepatitis B vaccinations she received on July 24, 2017,
on an unspecified date, and on December 18, 2017. ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s
failure to address the statute of limitations issue or otherwise prosecute her claim, this
case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed some medical records with the petition.3 On May 27, 2021, the
Clerk’s Office issued a notice that petitioner’s counsel, Martha Berry, was not admitted
to the Court of Federal Claims Bar, a requirement to practice and file cases with this
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).
3 Since this case has not yet gone through the Pre-Assignment Review (PAR) process, the filed
documents have not been corrected to comply with PAR requirements. The medical records from various
providers have been filed as a single exhibit (rather than each provider being filed as an individual
exhibit), and none of the medical records are certified to comply with Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(A). Due to the
unavailability of complete and certified records at this time, I will review it based on the records as filed.

Case 1:21-vv-01368-UNJ Document 10 Filed 11/22/23 Page 2 of 3
Court. ECF No. 5. Ms. Berry was ordered to complete the bar admissions process
within 30 days or risk dismissal of this case for failure to comply with the Court’s rules.
On June 3, 2021, the Pre-Assignment Review (PAR) Initial Order issued
reiterating Ms. Berry’s obligation to complete the attorney admissions process within a
reasonable time period. ECF No. 6. If Ms. Berry failed to complete the admissions
process in a timely manner, “substitution of counsel may be ordered or Petitioner may
be deemed a pro se Petitioner.” Id. at 2.
Despite numerous attempts for over two years to contact Ms. Berry about the
attorney admissions process by Clerk’s Office staff members and OSM staff attorneys,
Ms. Berry has been nonresponsive and has failed to complete the process. Moreover,
Petitioner has not submitted any additional filings to comply with the June 3, 2021 PAR
Initial Order.
On August 15, 2023, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for filing the petition outside the statute of limitations. ECF No. 8. The due
date for Order to Show Cause has passed, and Petitioner has still not yet filed a
response.
Grounds for Dismissal
Petitioner’s case faces dismissal on the grounds of (1) filing the petition outside
the statute of limitations window and (2) failure to prosecute the case for over two years.
The case has been complicated by the failure of Petitioner’s counsel to complete the
attorney admission’s process for the Court of Federal Claims Bar and communicate with
court staff.
First, this case was clearly untimely filed and warrants dismissal under the
statute of limitations. The Vaccine Act states that “no petition may be filed for
compensation under the Program for such injury after the expiration of 36 months after
the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the
significant aggravation of such injury.” Section 16(a)(2).
At a March 5, 2018 rheumatology appointment, Petitioner reported body pain and
other symptoms approximately two weeks after each of the three hepatitis B
vaccinations. Exhibit 1 at 87. The rheumatologist noted the possibility that the
vaccinations caused autoimmune reactions. Id. at 90. Since the last vaccination was
administered on December 18, 2017, the most recent “first symptom or manifestation of
onset” (which would give Petitioner the most favorable statute of limitations window)
occurred in early January 2018. See exhibit 1 at 14 (January 30, 2018 appointment). To
comply with the statute of limitations, Petitioner would have needed to file her vaccine
claim by January 2021. However, Petitioner only filed her petition on May 17, 2021, four
months past the deadline.
Second, 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 &
2

Case 1:21-vv-01368-UNJ Document 10 Filed 11/22/23 Page 3 of 3
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 Order to Show Cause that failure to
follow orders issued in this matter risked dismissal of the claim. Due to the lack of
response from Petitioner’s counsel to orders or informal communications with court
staff, it is unclear whether the failure to comply with orders is due to the Petitioner or her
counsel. Regardless, as cited in the case law above, failure by Petitioner or her counsel
to respond and/or comply with my orders, without justification or explanation, makes
dismissal appropriate.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for filing outside the statute of
limitations and failure to prosecute. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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