VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01850
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01850
Petitioner: Jamie L. Holmes
Filed: 2021-09-14
Decided: 2025-03-14
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-06-11
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 14, 2021, Jamie L. Holmes filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a Tdap vaccine on June 11, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, contested the statutory severity requirement, which mandates that the injury persist for at least six months. The public decision, issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 14, 2025, dismissed the case. Holmes, a 43-year-old registered nurse, received the Tdap vaccine in her left deltoid. Within seven days, she experienced left shoulder pain and limited range of motion, diagnosed as SIRVA. She sought treatment including physical therapy and steroid injections, and took a leave of absence from work. Medical records indicated improvement by early October 2020, with regained range of motion, stability, and strength, and she met physical therapy goals. While Holmes claimed ongoing pain and difficulty with certain movements, the court found that contemporaneous medical evidence did not support the injury's persistence for the required six-month period. Her medical records during the alleged period of residual injury primarily focused on right-sided arm complaints and potential neuropathy, with limited objective findings for the left shoulder. Although she presented later evidence from a new provider in October 2023, the court found it lacked probative value due to the time elapsed and the focus on intervening right-sided issues. The court noted that the witness statements offered were less compelling as they did not acknowledge her intervening right-sided complaints. Consequently, the court dismissed her claim for failing to establish the statutory severity requirement. Petitioner was represented by Patricia L. Hall of Williams McCarthy LLC, and Respondent was represented by Ryan Pohlman Miller of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jamie L. Holmes alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccine on June 11, 2020. The claim was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 14, 2025, for failure to meet the statutory severity requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i), which requires the injury to persist for at least six months. Contemporaneous medical records indicated significant improvement by early October 2020, with regained range of motion, stability, and strength, and Petitioner meeting physical therapy goals. Post-October 2020 medical records primarily focused on right-sided arm complaints and potential neuropathy, with limited objective findings for the left shoulder. Later evidence from a new provider in October 2023 was deemed to have questionable probative value due to the time elapsed and focus on intervening issues. Witness statements were considered less compelling as they did not acknowledge the right-sided complaints. Petitioner was represented by Patricia L. Hall, and Respondent by Ryan Pohlman Miller. No specific mechanism of injury or expert testimony was detailed in the public decision, and no award was made due to dismissal.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01850-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-14
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/11/2025) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1850V
JAMIE L. HOLMES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 11, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Patricia L. Hall, Williams McCarthy LLC, Rockford, IL, for Petitioner.
Ryan Pohlman Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On September 14, 2021, Jamie L. Holmes 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 alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following her receipt of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on June 11, 2020. Petition (ECF No. 1). However, Petitioner cannot
preponderantly establish that her post-vaccination injury persisted for at least six months,
as required under Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, her claim must be dismissed.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 2 of 9
I. Procedural History
In Spring 2022, the case was assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (the Office
of Special Masters’s designation for alleged injuries that have traditionally not required
extensive litigation). ECF No. 13. Respondent promptly advised that he might formally
contest the statutory severity requirement – which Petitioner had not squarely addressed
in her Petition or her original affidavit. ECF No. 17.3 Petitioner thereafter received several
opportunities to gather additional evidence while the claim awaited Respondent’s medical
review. See generally ECF Nos. 19 – 36.
On January 26, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report formally disputing
severity. ECF No. 39. Petitioner was ordered to show cause why her claim should not be
dismissed. ECF No. 40. On September 9, 2024, Petitioner filed additional records and
her Brief. ECF Nos. 41 – 44. On October 4, 2024, Respondent filed a Response, ECF
No. 45. Petitioner did not file a reply. The matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently
“reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete
3 Petitioner’s September 2021 affidavit and other exhibits originally filed alongside the Petition (at ECF No.
1) were stricken because of a formatting issue, see ECF Nos. 16 – 17.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 3 of 9
as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997
F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The credibility of the individual
offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special
master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to
other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given
at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
A potential petitioner must demonstrate that he or she “suffered the residual effects
or complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more
than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)4; see also
Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the
“potential petitioner” must not only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional
threshold, by “submitting supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that
a special master has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case”), aff’d, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
4 Section 11(c)(1)(D) presents two alternative grounds for eligibility to compensation if a petitioner does not
meet the six months threshold: (ii) death from the vaccine, and (iii) inpatient hospitalization and surgical
intervention. Neither alternative is alleged or implicated in this claim.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 4 of 9
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the
availability of the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from
taking a vaccine.” H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2313–1, 2313–373, cited in Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
III. Evidence
I have reviewed the entire record including all medical records, affidavits or
declarations, and additional evidence, and highlight the following:
• Contemporaneous Evidence. Petitioner had no prior history of left shoulder pain
or dysfunction. She periodically sought medical care for other issues. See, e.g.,
Ex. 1 at 20, 79; Ex. 4 at 33, 41 – 43, 51, 54, 61; see also Ex. 2 at 113 (health
insurance information). She was 43 years old, and employed full-time as a
registered nurse, at the time of vaccination. Ex. 5 at ¶ 6.
• On June 11, 2020, Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left deltoid muscle.
Ex. 1 at 178. The vaccination occurred in Illinois, at a hospital emergency
department (“ED”), shortly after Petitioner had accidentally cut her right hand with
a gardening tool. Id. at 79. She was discharged in stable condition. Id. at 82.
• On June 18, 2020, at about 7:00 a.m., Petitioner returned to the ED for evaluation
of post-vaccination left shoulder pain and limited range of motion (“ROM”), which
was confirmed on exam. Ex. 1 at 7, 19, 21. X-rays were unremarkable. Id. at 22.
An on-call orthopedic surgeon assessed “an inflammatory process that is
secondary to the injection.” Id. at 22. Petitioner was instructed to wear a sling, take
NSAIDs for pain, and follow up with outpatient providers. Id.
• That same day, Petitioner requested an unpaid leave of absence from work, under
the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Ex. 14 at 1. Her employer granted the
request, specifying a leave end date of September 8, 2020. Id. at 1, 3.
• At a June 23, 2020 orthopedic initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that her
shoulder pain rated 4/10 at rest, rising to 8/10 with activity. Ex. 3 at 15. She had
tried activity modification, heat, ice, wearing the sling, and taking ibuprofen. Id. An
exam found tenderness, pain, and decreased ROM, but negative impingement
signs. Id. at 16. Petitioner was assessed with adhesive capsulitis, for which she
received a steroid injection and referred to physical therapy (“PT”). Id. at 17.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 5 of 9
• At the July 1, 2020 PT initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that the recent steroid
injection had helped her pain and ROM. Ex. 2 at 106. Her pain was currently 2/10
at rest and 6/10 with activity, particularly overhead movements. Id. An exam found
reduced ROM and reduced strength. Id. Glenohumeral joint mobility could not be
assessed due to the pain. Id. The therapist planned two to three sessions per week
for 12 weeks (i.e., until September 23, 2020), with the hope of discharge to a home
exercise program (“HEP”) “to ensure carry over of functional gains achieved in the
clinic.” Ex. 2 at 106; see also id. at 86 – 105 (PT sessions two - 11).
• On July 23, 2020, both the physical therapist and the orthopedist assessed that
Petitioner’s pain and ROM were somewhat improved, and her main issue was
ongoing weakness. Ex. 2 at 78 – 85 (PT session 12, and progress note); Ex. 3 at
12 – 13 (orthopedics reevaluation). The orthopedist ordered an MRI to rule out a
rotator cuff tear. Ex. 3 at 13; see also Ex. 2 at 72 – 76 (PT sessions 13 – 15).
• On August 3, 2020, the orthopedist reviewed that the MRI (Ex. 3 at 21) had found
tendinitis, fraying, strain, and bursitis but no full thickness rotator cuff tear. Ex. 3 at
7. Petitioner received a second steroid injection, and was told to continue taking
NSAIDs and attending PT. Id.; see also Ex. 2 at 40 – 71 (PT sessions 16 – 29).
• On September 8, 2020, Petitioner attended her 30th PT session. She was “getting
better, the shoulder seems more stable… Reporting less pain, overall with lifting
and AROM exercises… Would continue to benefit from skilled PT at this time
focusing on mobility and functional stability.” Ex. 2 at 38; accord Ex. 3 at 2
(orthopedics follow-up appointment that same date, noting that Petitioner would
“continue PT and transition to HEP”). However, with that 30th session on
September 8, 2020, Petitioner reached the limit on PT that would typically be
covered by her health insurance plan. Ex. 13 at 3; Ex. 2 at 113; but see id. at 11
(reflecting that insurance made at least partial payments for dates of service
through September 18, 2020). Coincidentally, September 8, 2020, marked the end
of her FMLA-protected unpaid leave, and her return to work, Ex. 14 at 3.
• Despite the insurance issue, Petitioner continued to attend PT. See generally Ex.
2 at 26 – 37 (PT sessions 31 – 38). September 28, 2020, marked her 39th session,
and a detailed progress note reflects a changed assessment from “adhesive
capsulitis” to merely “left shoulder weakness”; and pain ratings of 0/10 at rest and
2/10 with activity. Id. at 23. Additionally, by September 28th the shoulder had full
ROM, 4+/5 strength, and normal glenohumeral joint mobility. Id. The therapist
recommended just two to three sessions for three more weeks (i.e., until October
19, 2020). Id. at 24.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 6 of 9
• Two additional PT sessions, on September 30 and October 2, 2020, do not
document any new findings. Ex. 2 at 17 – 18. But Petitioner reported that her “L
arm feels stronger than [her] R arm now.” Id. at 17. Then on October 6, 2020, she
cancelled all further appointments. Id. at 118 (“discharged to HEP”).
• The formal discharge summary, dated October 21, 2020, states that Petitioner was
“performing at [her] prior level of function,” and had 0/10 pain at rest and with
activity. Ex. 2 at 15. In addition to the previously-noted normal ROM and
glenohumeral joint stability, she now had full strength of 5/5. Id. Petitioner was
discharged because she had “met all goals for therapy.” Id.
• Thereafter, between October 23, 2020 – June 28, 2022, Petitioner had at least 21
medical encounters that do not document any ongoing left shoulder injury or
residual effects. Instead, these encounters primarily focused on Petitioner’s acute
complaint of right-sided arm pain, numbness, and cramps.
• After initially raising that complaint to her PCP on October 23rd (Ex. 4 at 31 – 38),
Petitioner underwent electromyography (“EMG”) and nerve conduction velocity
(“NCV”) studies of the right arm which suggested a neuropathy,5 and established
care with a neurologist who prescribed gabapentin (see e.g., Ex. 12 at 4 – 5). Then
on November 25th, in an effort to rule out a more “diffuse polyneuropathy,” the
neurologist obtained EMG/NCV studies of the left arm and left leg. Ex. 12 at 12 –
14. There was electrophysiological evidence that the left arm had an “isolated left
median neuritis,” but no corresponding exam findings or treatment at neurology
follow-ups on January 8 and July 9, 2021. Id. at 14, 7 – 8, 9 – 11 (organized
chronologically).
• In August 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedics practice, where she
underwent repeat right-sided EMG/NCV studies (Ex. 7 at 2 – 4, 8 – 9). An
orthopedic surgeon diagnosed right-sided cubital tunnel syndrome and, performed
an ulnar nerve decompression in September 2021 (Ex. 7 at 68 – 69). The
orthopedic surgeon managed Petitioner’s ongoing right-sided complaints, which
involved occupational therapy (“OT”) and a steroid injection to the right hand first
web space, until December 2, 2021. See generally Ex. 7 at 13 – 59. Afterwards on
December 31, 2021, a physical medicine and rehabilitation (“PM&R”) specialist
5 The November 2020 EMG/NCV studies of the right arm was ordered by the PCP, and completed at
Swedish American Hospital. Ex. 4 at 35. While the findings are discussed by several providers (see e.g.,
Ex. 4 at 26 – 27; Ex. 12 at 4 – 5; Ex. 7 at 2 – 3), the actual EMG/NCV report does not appear to be filed.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 7 of 9
evaluated Petitioner’s ongoing right-sided complaints. Id. at 61 – 63. Again, none
of these records document an ongoing left-sided injury.
• On October 9, 2023, Petitioner met with a different orthopedic surgeon for the first
time. Ex. 7 at 65. She reported that a 2020 tetanus vaccine had caused left
shoulder pain, limited ROM, and difficulty in lifting her arm. Id. The orthopedic
surgeon documented that a physical examination revealed positive Hawkins and
Neer’s signs, but full strength of 5/5. Id. And there is not clear documentation of
reduced ROM of the shoulder. See id. at 66 (“Cervical exam: Cervical motion is
full and pain free. Globally reduced ROM.”) (emphasis added). X-rays were
unremarkable. Id. at 66. The new orthopedic surgeon assessed left shoulder pain
and adhesive capsulitis. Id. He provided a steroid injection, and a course of oral
steroids for any continued pain. Id. There are no subsequent records.
• Affidavits. Upon initiating her claim in September 2021, Petitioner spoke of her
injury entirely in the past tense and did not claim any ongoing pain or dysfunction.
See generally ECF No. 1-8.
• In contrast, after the severity issue was raised, see ECF No. 17, Petitioner stated
that in October 2020, she discontinued formal PT for her left shoulder, because
she could not afford the out-of-pocket costs, and she was confident performing
home exercises (citing her training as a nurse). Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 17 - 18. She recalls
diligently continuing those home exercises diligently, gradually increasing her
functionality, and having pain upon raising her left arm until “approximately
February 2021.” Id. at ¶¶ 19 - 21. But as of May 2022, Petitioner was still
experiencing periodic “instances during which it will become very painful to lift or
use her arm.” Id. at ¶ 23.
• A nursing assistant recalls that after her September 2020 return to work, Petitioner
had ongoing left shoulder pain, stiffness, and decreased ROM, and needed
assistance lifting and carrying items. These issues slowly improved, but were still
present upon the nursing assistant’s departure from the workplace in January
2021. Ex. 6 at ¶¶ 8 – 9.
• Petitioner’s sister recalls that she opted for a home exercise program because her
formal PT entailed out-of-pocket costs, travel, and arranging for childcare. Ex. 8 at
¶¶ 7 – 9. The sister states that Petitioner complained of difficulties keeping up at
work in fall 2020. Id. at ¶ 11. Finally, from the sister’s personal observation, as of
November 2023, Petitioner “still does not have full motion in her shoulder, and I
can tell that her right shoulder now sits higher and is flatter in appearance than the
left shoulder.” Id. at ¶ 12.
7

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 8 of 9
IV. Analysis
Petitioner must preponderantly establish that after her June 11, 2020 vaccination,
she suffered a left shoulder injury and residual effects persisting until at least December
11, 2020. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
The Program recognizes that a petitioner’s discharge from formal medical care
does not necessarily establish the complete resolution of an injury, with no residual
effects. See, e.g., Silacci v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1265V, 2024 WL
5295093, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 5, 2024), citing Herren v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
Here, Ms. Holmes has provided some explanation that additional PT would have involved
significant out-of-pocket costs, and that her medical background was useful while
performing home exercises.
But the medical record evidence is not ambiguous about severity in a way that can
be construed in her favor. The physical therapist was open to continuing formal sessions
until about October 19, 2020. Ex. 2 at 24. But Petitioner ended formal PT several weeks
earlier – reporting that her “L arm feels stronger than [her] R arm now” and she was
“performing at [her] prior level of function.” Id. at 17, 15. The therapist confirmed that
Petitioner had regained full range of motion, stability, and strength; and she had met all
goals. Id. at 15. This contemporaneous objective evidence does not suggest that any
residual symptoms were present in early October 2020 or would have continued for two
more months.
There is also no “presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as
to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Brief at 8, citing Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1383. But Ms.
Holmes’s post-PT discharge medical records are problematic because of their specific
context. In particular from October 2020 – January 2021, when she allegedly had a
residual, if improving, left shoulder injury, she repeatedly complained of a right arm injury,
and was evaluated for a potentially more diffuse neuropathic condition. But apart from
electrodiagnostic evidence suggesting a left-sided median neuritis, Ex. 12 at 14 (which
might represent an exclusionary diagnosis for a Table SIRVA claim, 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(15)(c)(iv)), there was no documentation of an ongoing left-sided injury, during
medical encounters when it logically could have been reported and/or identified. Compare
Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1383 (hypothesizing: “A patient having a heart attack is not likely to
mention his runny nose, nor is his physician likely to record it”).
Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed these issues. The witness statements
offered are overall less compelling, because they do not acknowledge her intervening
8

Case 1:21-vv-01850-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/14/25 Page 9 of 9
right-sided complaints. And while the October 2023 orthopedics appointment record
contains some objective exam findings and evidence of treatment for a left shoulder
injury, it occurred over three years after the PT discharge, with a new provider who
depended on Petitioner’s own incomplete medical history (focusing on a vaccine injury,
and not acknowledging her intervening issues). I previously warned Petitioner that this
kind of a medical encounter would have questionably probative value. ECF No. 33; accord
Response at 6, citing Gerami v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-442V, 2013 WL
5998109, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2013), mot. for rev. denied, 127 Fed. Cl.
299 (2014) (affording little weight to a report made after the fact, in the context of
litigation). Overall, there is not preponderant evidence to support Petitioner’s allegation
that her left shoulder injury was severe enough for Program eligibility.
Conclusion
Petitioner has not established the statutory severity requirement. Therefore, she is
ineligible to pursue compensation under the Program. In the absence of a timely-filed
motion for either reconsideration or review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court),
the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
9