VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01573
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01573
Petitioner: Fred Allison
Filed: 2022-07-25
Decided: 2025-08-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-21
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Fred Allison filed a petition alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving influenza and pneumonia vaccines on October 21, 2019. The petition was filed on July 25, 2022. The case was initially placed in a special processing unit, but the Special Master noted that the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is not on the Vaccine Injury Table, meaning the claim could not be based on that vaccine. The petitioner was ordered to file a supplemental affidavit and an amended petition detailing the vaccine and injury. Petitioner's counsel filed two motions for extensions of time and a motion to withdraw, citing an inability to contact the petitioner who had become unresponsive. The Special Master issued an order for the petitioner to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed, warning that failure to respond would lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Petitioner did not respond to this order. The Special Master dismissed the petition on August 25, 2025, for failure to prosecute, citing the petitioner's failure to comply with court orders and respond to the show cause order, as well as counsel's inability to contact the client.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01573-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/25/2025) regarding 22 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01573-UNJ Document 23 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1573V
UNPUBLISHED
FRED ALLISON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 25, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean F. Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On October 21, 2022, Fred Allison 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration as a result of receiving influenza and pneumonia vaccines on October 21,
2019. Petition at 1.
This matter was assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” based on the initial
presumption that it presented issues that were likely to be resolved expeditiously. On
January 26, 2023, I issued an Activation and Reassignment Order addressing the basis
for Petitioner’s vaccine injury claim. (ECF No. 10). I noted that Petitioner alleged an injury
based in part on the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, which is not included on the
Vaccine Injury Table, and hence not a basis for a claim. On February 2, 2023, I issued a
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-01573-UNJ Document 23 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 3
scheduling order requiring Petitioner to file a supplemental affidavit and an Amended
Petition detailing the vaccine in question and the alleged injury. (ECF No. 12).
Petitioner filed two motions for extension of time to file the ordered documentation,
on March 27, 2023, and April 24, 2023. In between these two motions, Petitioner also
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on April 6, 2023. Finally, Petitioner filed a status
report on June 15, 2023, the last filing made by a party in this case to date. In this status
report, counsel for Petitioner indicates that “[t]he facts of the case do not support my filing
an amended petitioner that meets the necessary criteria. I do not have a reasonable basis
to prepare the amended petition. I have attempted communicating my intent to withdraw
with my client but he has become unresponsive and is withholding his participation in his
case.” (ECF No. 17).
On October 1, 2024, I ordered Petitioner to show cause why his claim should not
be dismissed, and to file any records supporting his claim and bearing on the
aforementioned issues. (ECF No. 21). The Order also indicated that “failure to respond
to this order would be interpreted as either an inability to provide supporting
documentation for this claim or as a failure to prosecute and the claim may be dismissed.”
Id. Petitioner was given until October 31, 2024, to make this showing. However, Petitioner
did not file anything.
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. 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 my October 2024 Order that if documentation
was not provided by October 31, 2024, his claim would be dismissed. But Petitioner did
not make the required filing. This is not surprising, as Petitioner’s Counsel had previously
noted that he could not contact Petitioner despite due effort. Nor does it appear that
2

Case 1:22-vv-01573-UNJ Document 23 Filed 08/25/25 Page 3 of 3
counsel was able to communicate with Petitioner following the issuance of the Show
Cause Order. Therefore, dismissal of the petition on grounds of failure to prosecute are
justified in this case.
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed respond to the Order
to Show Cause issued on October 1, 2024. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute. 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.
3