VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00350
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00350
Petitioner: Cheryl Weakley
Filed: 2025-01-13
Decided: 2025-02-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-24
Condition: Polymyalgia Rheumatica
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Cheryl Weakley filed a petition on January 13, 2025, alleging she developed Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) after receiving a flu vaccine on October 24, 2020. Initially, she had also alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) in a petition filed on March 10, 2023, but later amended her petition to focus solely on PMR. During a status conference, the Special Master expressed concerns about the viability of a PMR claim, noting that the program generally does not recognize it as vaccine-caused. The court ordered Ms. Weakley to show cause why her case should not be dismissed for failing to satisfy the first prong of the Althen test for off-Table claims, which requires demonstrating a plausible link between the vaccine and the injury. Ms. Weakley requested and received two extensions to file her response. However, she ultimately failed to comply with the court's order by the final deadline. The Special Master noted that a petitioner must support their claim with medical records or a physician's opinion, and that Ms. Weakley had not provided sufficient evidence. Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failing to meet the burden of proof for her alleged injury.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00350-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-18
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/13/2025) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (af) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00350-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-350-V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
CHERYL WEAKLEY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: January 13, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jonathan J. Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Emily Hanson, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On March 10, 2023, Cheryl Weakley filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleged that
she developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receipt of the
flu vaccine on October 24, 2020. Petition (ECF No. 1). One year later, on April 9, 2024, Petitioner
filed an amended petition alleging a different injury: that she developed Polymyalgia Rheumatica
(“PMR”) as a result of the same vaccination. Amended Petition (ECF No. 15).
On August 29, 2024, I held an initial telephonic status conference with the parties in this
matter. During the status conference, I explained that the Program has generally not deemed PMR
to be a vaccine-caused injury, and therefore it was highly unlikely this claim could succeed. But I
provided Petitioner the opportunity to attempt to identify any new scientific or medical findings
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:23-vv-00350-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 3
bearing on the subject that would justify re-examining whether PMR could be a vaccine-associated
injury.
To that end, on September 3, 2024, I issued a Scheduling Order directing Petitioner to file
a brief showing cause (on or before October 31, 2024), why the case should not be dismissed for
failure to satisfy Althen Prong One. Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23) (“Order”). On the day of the
deadline, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time, requesting that the show
cause deadline be extended a little over one month, to December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 24). I granted
the motion.
However, on December 2, 2024, Petitioner filed a second extension request (ECF No. 25).
I granted this motion as well, but made clear that I would not entertain any future motions for
extension of time. See December 2, 2024 Docket Entry. The new deadline to respond to the
September 3rd Show Cause Order was set for January 2, 2025. But Petitioner has failed to comply
with the Order and has not otherwise asked again for additional extensions.
Under Vaccine Rule 21(c), a special master may dismiss a petition for failure of the
petitioner to prosecute or comply with any order of the special master. In this case, Petitioner
requested two extensions (each time at the very last minute), both of which were granted, but has
allowed the most recent deadline to pass without action. Moreover, Petitioner has been on notice
as to my reasoned concerns about the claim’s viability – and despite due opportunity, has failed to
act.
At bottom, Petitioner lacks the scientific/medical support needed to substantiate her claim.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her
claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion
of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in the record
for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim cannot succeed and must
be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A). And dismissal is also appropriate for failure to adhere to my
prior orders. See Vaccine Rule 21(c); see also Sapharas v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed.
Cl. 503 (1996); Tsekouras v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d
819 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner’s case. In the absence of a motion for review
filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, and pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(c)(2), the Clerk of the Court
SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.3
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00350-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/18/25 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3