VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01465
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01465
Petitioner: Cecil Terry
Filed: 2022-10-07
Decided: 2025-01-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-15
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Cecil Terry filed a petition alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 15, 2020. Respondent argued that the petitioner's pain was not limited to his shoulder and that other conditions could explain his symptoms, recommending denial of compensation. The Special Master noted that the petitioner's symptoms spread to his chest and back, and he had been diagnosed with cervical conditions that might explain his shoulder pain, suggesting he could not establish a Table SIRVA claim. An Order to Show Cause was issued, giving the petitioner a final opportunity to present evidence, but he failed to respond by the deadline. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof, as the petitioner did not provide preponderant evidence of a Table SIRVA injury and did not respond to the court's order.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01465-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-07
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/05/2024) regarding 27 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01465-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1465V
UNPUBLISHED
CECIL TERRY,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: December 5, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Timothy J. Manchin, Manchin Injury Law Group, PLLC, Fairmont, WV, for Petitioner.
Adam Nemeth Muffet, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On October 7, 2022, Cecil Terry 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 that he suffered from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
October 15, 2020. Petition at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
I. Procedural Background
On February 6, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report recommending that
compensation be denied in this case, since many Table SIRVA elements allegedly cannot
be met. ECF No. 25. Respondent asserts, among other things, that Petitioner’s pain and
1 Because this 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 1:22-vv-01465-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 4
reduced range of motion were not limited to his left shoulder. Id. at 12. He further notes
seven different instances in the record where Petitioner complained of pain outside the
shoulder, including Petitioner’s own admission of pain outside his shoulder which he
details in his affidavit. Id. And Respondent argues that there are “other conditions or
abnormalities are present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. Petitioner was
diagnosed with a host of conditions, including pain in cervical spine, cervicalgia, cervical
spondylosis, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical degenerative disc disease. Id.
In light of the issues raised by Respondent, and after a preliminary review of
Petitioner’s medical records, I stated in an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 26) that I
intended to ultimately reassign this case from SPU, as I expected that Petitioner could
not successfully establish a Table claim. At a minimum, the existing record suggested
that Petitioner would not be able to establish that he suffered a Table SIRVA injury, given
that his post-vaccination arm pain was not limited to his shoulder, and that he had been
diagnosed with a host of cervical conditions that may explain his shoulder injury. See
Respondent’s Report at 12. But I was prepared to transfer the matter out of SPU so that
a causation-in-fact claim based on the same record could be explored.
The Order to Show Cause was issued on April 17, 2024, and afforded Petitioner a
final opportunity to marshal evidence in support of the claim. ECF No. 26. Petitioner was
ordered to file a Response to the Order to Show Cause by June 3, 2024. To date,
however, Petitioner has not complied with this order and there has been no further docket
activity on this case.
II. Petitioner Cannot Meet the SIRVA Table Elements
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
2

Case 1:22-vv-01465-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 4
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
Respondent has argued that from his initial presentation on November 20, 2020,
Petitioner reported his arm as “get[ting] swollen at times” and symptoms “spread[ing] to
his chest and back.” Ex. 4 at 1. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 44 (reporting that after vaccination he
developed left shoulder pain radiating into his neck); Ex. 6 at 1 (describing his pain as
generally all over from his neck down to his arm); Ex. 7 at 5 (reporting left upper extremity
pain and neck pain after vaccination); Ex. 8 at 48 (reporting pain in the neck and left
shoulder that radiated into arm). In Petitioner’s own affidavit, he also described pain
outside the shoulder; he reported symptoms of “left shoulder and neck pain, [and]
radiating pain into [his] neck and left arm.” Ex. 9 at 1. These symptoms simply are not
consistent with SIRVA. And despite due opportunity, Petitioner has offered no additional
evidence to substantiate these matters. Petitioner therefore cannot establish a Table
SIRVA claim.
III. Petitioner Has Failed to Prosecute this Claim
An additional ground for dismissal herein arises from Petitioner’s general failure to
prosecute this matter. 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
3

Case 1:22-vv-01465-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 4
counsel - is grounds for the claim’s dismissal. 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 April 17, 2024 Order to Show Cause that
he risked dismissal of the claim. I ultimately set a final deadline to act by June 3, 2024.
But Petitioner failed to file any response.
Conclusion
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide
preponderant evidence that he suffered a Table SIRVA injury. He has also failed to
respond to the Order to Show Cause issued on April 17, 2024. Accordingly, this case is
DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court 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.
4