VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00151
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00151
Petitioner: Anthony Blei
Filed: 2023-02-03
Decided: 2024-06-17
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-10-07
Condition: left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Anthony Blei filed a petition alleging that the influenza vaccine he received on October 7, 2021, resulted in a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). He claimed this was a Table injury lasting more than six months. After the case was activated to the Special Processing Unit, the Chief Special Master issued an Order to Show Cause because Mr. Blei had not yet established the six-month severity requirement. In response, Mr. Blei filed a motion to dismiss his petition, stating he no longer wished to pursue the case in the Vaccine Program and intended to pursue responsible third parties instead. He acknowledged the six-month severity issue with his claim when looking solely at traditional SIRVA symptoms. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove a Table injury and that the residual effects lasted more than six months, or that the injury required hospitalization and surgical intervention. The court found that the record did not disclose preponderant evidence that Mr. Blei suffered his alleged injury for at least six months, nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating the injury was vaccine-caused. Therefore, Mr. Blei's motion 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_23-vv-00151-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/16/2024) regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00151-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-151V
ANTHONY BLEI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 16, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Andrew Donald Downing, Downing, Allison & Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ , for Petitioner.
Ryan Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On February 3, 2023, Anthony Blei 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 the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October
7, 2021, resulted in a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, lasting more than six months. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
Following this case’s activation to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”), I issued an
Order to Show Cause for Petitioner’s failure to establish the six-month severity
requirement. ECF Nos. 14, 23. In response to my Order, Petitioner filed a Motion for a
Decision Dismissing his Petition. ECF No. 24. In his motion, Petitioner indicated that he
“no longer wishes to pursue a case in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 7. Petitioner
1 Because this Ruling 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 Ruling 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 1:23-vv-00151-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 2
maintained that he has successfully demonstrated a Table SIRVA claim but
“acknowledge[d] the six-month severity issue with his [Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program] claim when looking solely at the traditional SIRVA symptoms of pain and loss
of range of motion in the shoulder.” Id. Petitioner further requested “a decision dismissing
his Vaccine Program claim so that he may pursue responsible third parties[,]” instead of
engaging experts to prove causation. Id. at 7-8. Petitioner indicated that he “understands
that a decision by the Chief Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment
of dismissal. He has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the
Vaccine Program.” Id. at 8.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a vaccine. 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, examination of the record does not disclose preponderant evidence
that Petitioner suffered his alleged injury for at least six-months. Further, the record does
not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that
Petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused. For these reasons, 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.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk
of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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