VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01768
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01768
Petitioner: Suzanne Brogan
Filed: 2022-12-05
Decided: 2025-01-15
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-12-06
Condition: polymyalgia rheumatica
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Suzanne Brogan filed a petition on December 5, 2022, alleging she developed polymyalgia rheumatica from an influenza vaccine received on December 6, 2019. The court ordered her to provide supporting documentation. On May 5, 2023, her counsel informed the court that Ms. Brogan had passed away and was obtaining the death certificate. Subsequent orders required counsel to provide the death certificate and update on the estate's administrator. Counsel reported in January 2024 that Ms. Brogan's son and the estate's attorney indicated the estate no longer wished to pursue the claim. An Order to Show Cause was issued on October 16, 2024, warning that failure to prosecute or comply with orders could lead to dismissal. Evidence of service of this order on the estate's attorney was filed. As no action was taken by the estate to pursue the case, and due to continued disregard of court orders, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on January 15, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01768-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-15
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/17/2024) regarding 27 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01768-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1768V
UNPUBLISHED
SUZANNE BROGAN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 17, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On December 5, 2022, Suzanne Brogan filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she developed polymyalgia rheumatica from
an influenza vaccine she received on December 6, 2019. ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s
failure to prosecute her claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
On the date the petition was filed, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring
Petitioner to file medical records and other statutorily required supporting
documentation. ECF No. 5. Petitioner filed medical records and other supporting
documentation. ECF Nos. 6-13.
On May 5, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report advising that Suzanne
Brogan had passed away. ECF No. 16. Counsel stated he was in process of obtaining
the death certificate and investigating the circumstances of Ms. Brogan’s death. The
June 30, 2023 order required Petitioner’s counsel file the death certificate and provide
an update on the establishment of Petitioner’s estate. ECF No. 18.
On August 29, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time and
attached Suzanne Brogan’s death certificate. ECF No. 20. In the motion, counsel
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.

Case 1:22-vv-01768-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
requested additional time to determine whether the probate proceedings had been
completed and who had been appointed as the administrator of Ms. Brogan’s estate.
On January 29, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report stating that he had
been communicating with Ms. Brogan’s son and the attorney for Ms. Brogan’s estate
but had been unable to obtain probate documents that identified the administrator of the
estate. Ms. Brogan’s son and the attorney had both represented that the estate no
longer wished to pursue the vaccine claim. Petitioner’s counsel requested that the case
be dismissed based on these representations.
On January 31, 2024, OSM staff attorney contacted Petitioner’s counsel via
informal communications, copying Respondent’s counsel, and advised that the filing of
probate documents and a notice of voluntary dismissal was necessary to have the case
be dismissed. Due to the uncooperativeness of Ms. Brogan’s son with formally closing
this case, Petitioner’s counsel responded that he would serve any order to show cause
on the attorney for the estate.
On October 16, 2024, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 24. Petitioner’s counsel was ordered to
serve the order to show cause on the attorney for Ms. Brogan’s estate.
On November 6, 2024, counsel filed evidence that the Order to Show Cause had
been served on the attorney for Petitioner’s estate by certified mail. ECF No. 25. In a
status report submitted on December 16, 2024, counsel did not indicate that the
attorney for Petitioner’s estate had communicated with him since the Order to Show
Cause was served on the attorney. ECF 26. No other filings have been submitted in the
response to the Order to Show Cause.
Grounds for Dismissal
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 & 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.”).
The attorney for Petitioner’s estate was specifically advised in the October 16,
2024 Order to Show Cause that failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure
2

Case 1:22-vv-01768-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3
to communicate with his counsel which prevents compliance with those order) risked
dismissal of the claim. As noted above, the attorney for Petitioner estate has not taken
any action to continue pursuing this case. Because Petitioner’s estate has continued to
disregard my orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2 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