VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01776
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01776
Petitioner: Fazal Siddiqui
Filed: 2021-08-30
Decided: 2024-02-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-09
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Fazal Siddiqui filed a petition alleging he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 9, 2019. He claimed SIRVA as a defined Table injury lasting more than six months. Respondent opposed compensation, arguing that the record showed prior left shoulder pain and dysfunction and that other conditions could explain his symptoms. On January 5, 2024, Mr. Siddiqui moved to dismiss his petition, acknowledging he could not prove entitlement to compensation. He understood that dismissal would result in a judgment against him and intended to elect to file a civil action instead. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove a Table injury or a vaccine-caused injury, and that the injury must have residual effects for more than six months, or result in death or require hospitalization and surgery. The court found that the record lacked sufficient medical records or opinions to demonstrate Mr. Siddiqui suffered from SIRVA. Therefore, his motion to dismiss was granted, his claim was denied, and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01776-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-07
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/08/2024) regarding 24 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01776-UNJ Document 25 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1776V
FAZAL SIDDIQUI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Timothy I. McArdle, I, Nolan Law Group, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On August 30, 2021, Fazal Siddiqui 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 alleged that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury lasting more than six months, after
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 9, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 10-11.
On June 27, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, opposing compensation.
ECF No. 21. Specifically, he argues that the record shows Petitioner suffered prior left
shoulder pain and dysfunction and that there are other conditions or abnormalities which
would likely explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Id. at 11-12; see 42 C.F.R. 42 C.F.R. §
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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-01776-UNJ Document 25 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2
100.3(c)(10)(i),(iv) (2017) (the first and fourth criteria set forth in the SIRVA Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation).
On January 5, 2024, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition. ECF
No. 23. In the motion, Petitioner acknowledged that “he will be unable to prove that he
is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 1) and “to proceed
further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 2). Petitioner expressed his
understanding that “a decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in
a judgment against him . . . [and] will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at
¶ 3. He indicated that he “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against
him and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at ¶ 5.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that he
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine, a “non-Table
claim.” See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Additionally, for either a Table or non-Table
claim, a petitioner must establish that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more
than six months post-vaccination, died from the administration of the vaccine, or suffered
an injury which required an inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. Section
11(c)(1)(D). 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. Section 13(a)(1).
In this case, the record does not contain medical records or a medical opinion
sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner suffered from a SIRVA as alleged. For these
reasons, and in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.
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.
2