VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00364
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00364
Petitioner: Chris Watson
Filed: 2023-06-20
Decided: 2025-07-21
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-02
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Chris Watson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on October 2, 2020. The case was dismissed because Mr. Watson failed to provide sufficient proof of the injury's severity, specifically that the residual effects lasted for more than six months after vaccination. While Mr. Watson claimed his pain began the next day and never subsided, the medical records showed an initial complaint of left shoulder pain over a month after vaccination, with no attribution to the vaccine at that time. He received a lidocaine injection in his left shoulder a week later, but again did not relate the pain to the vaccination. Approximately two months post-vaccination, he mentioned to his primary care provider that he wondered if the pain was from the flu shot, but no abnormalities were noted on examination, and no further treatment was recommended. There was then an eight-month gap in treatment for shoulder pain. When he returned to care, his chief complaint was listed as left shoulder injury follow-up for SIRVA, but the examination revealed right arm pain, for which he was referred to physical therapy. Mr. Watson later claimed this was a documentation error and that the pain was always in his left arm. However, the court found that the medical records did not sufficiently support his claim of ongoing symptoms for the required six-month period, particularly given the gaps in treatment and the conflicting notation of right arm pain. Witness declarations from friends and co-workers were deemed insufficient to overcome the lack of corroborating medical evidence, especially concerning the critical six-month period following vaccination. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim for insufficient proof of severity.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00364-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-21
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/20/2025) regarding 22 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-364V
CHRIS WATSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 20, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On March 14, 2023, Chris Watson 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
he received on October 2, 2020. Petition ¶ 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
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.
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 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 2 of 9
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has provided insufficient proof of
severity of injury, as required for all Vaccine Act claims. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).3
Petitioner’s claim is thus DISMISSED.
I. Relevant Procedural History and the Parties’ Arguments
Prior to Respondent’s informal assessment of the instant claim, and upon a cursory
but thorough review of the filed record (including the petition, medical records, and
declaration filed to-date), I issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 13. As noted therein,
the evidence revealed significant deficiencies in Petitioner’s case related to his ability to
establish the statutory six-month “severity requirement.” See generally id.
In response (and after receiving three extensions of time, ECF Nos. 14-16),
Petitioner submitted three additional witness declarations – two authored by friends and
the third by Petitioner himself, along with an updated medical record outside the relevant
gap in treatment bearing on severity. ECF No. 17. Petitioner also submitted a written
response brief. ECF No. 18. In it, he argued that he can establish that he suffered the
residual effects of his injury for more than six months, as “there is nothing in the record to
support that [his] pain resolved during the 8[-]month gap in treatment, and no indication
that he re[-]injured his left shoulder.” Id. He relied on statements made in his declarations
to argue his decision to forego treatment had a logical explanation – that his steroid
injection did not help, and he did not want to pay for out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 7-8.4
Respondent thereafter filed his Rule 4(c) Report and reply to Petitioner’s brief in
June 2024. ECF No. 21. Among other things,5 Respondent contended that Petitioner had
not established the existence of residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six
months after the October 2, 2020 vaccination. Respondent’s Report at 6-10 (citing
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)). This is due to the existence of a substantial temporal gap in the
medical records during which Petitioner did not report ongoing symptoms. Id. at 7.
Respondent argued the record actually suggests that when Petitioner returned to care,
his treaters did not assess him with a left shoulder injury, nor one attributable to the
subject vaccination; rather, the treater documented a right shoulder diagnosis. Id. (citing
3 Petitioner does not allege, nor would the evidence support, either alternative for establishing the severity
requirement: that the alleged injury resulted in death, or “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.”
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(ii), (iii). Rather, this case turns on Petitioner’s inability to prove six months of post-onset
sequelae.
4 Relying on witness declarations, Petitioner also contended that his injury was otherwise consistent with a
Table SIRVA. ECF No. 18 at 7-8.
5 Respondent also argued Petitioner cannot establish a Table SIRVA, as his medical records do not show
the onset of his left shoulder pain began within 48-hours of vaccination and none of his medical providers
ever recorded reduced ROM deficits. Respondent’s Report at 11-12 (internal citations omitted).
2

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 3 of 9
Ex. 3 at 85-86). Respondent also points out that Petitioner did not return for left shoulder
symptoms until February 2024 – three years and four months post-vaccination, two years
and six months after Petitioner’s previous complaint of left shoulder pain, and after my
Order to Show Cause. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 9 at 1-3) (emphasis omitted). And he asserts the
declarations submitted in support of severity cannot be the sole basis on which to find
severity met. Id. at 8-9. Respondent thus requests dismissal of Petitioner’s claim. Id. at
10, 12. The issue of severity is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Contemporaneous Medical Records
Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal on October 2, 2020. Ex. 1 at
3. Petitioner’s first post-vaccination visit for left shoulder pain occurred on November 12,
2020, over one month post vaccination, at a pain clinic. Ex. 2 at 10. Petitioner
“complain[ed] of pain located in the left shoulder.” Id. The physician noted that
“[c]ompared to the last visit[,]6 the pain is worse” and is associated with an “inability to
workout.” Id. Petitioner was assessed with a general “joint ache.” Id. at 11. Petitioner did
not attribute the pain to a prior vaccination at this time.
One week later, on November 19, 2020, Petitioner returned to the pain clinic with
ongoing complaints of left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 8. Petitioner received a lidocaine
injection in the left shoulder. Id. Petitioner again did not relate his pain to his vaccination.
On December 9, 2020, Petitioner had a routine annual wellness visit with his
primary care provider (“PCP”). Ex. 3 at 46. Of note, Petitioner complained of left shoulder
pain and “[w]onder[ed] if [the pain is] from a flu shot.” Id. An examination was normal, and
no abnormalities of the left shoulder were noted. Id. at 47. This is the first time Petitioner
relates, albeit equivocally, his pain to the vaccination. The assessment does not include
one pertaining to the left shoulder and no further treatment for Petitioner’s left shoulder
pain was suggested. Id. at 47-48.
There is then an over eight-month gap in Petitioner’s treatment for shoulder pain
– during which Petitioner did not seek care for any unrelated ailments. Following the gap,
Petitioner returned to his PCP’s office on August 30, 2021. Ex. 3 at 85. Petitioner’s chief
complaint was listed as “L[eft] shoulder injury [follow-up] for SIRVA.” Id. He stated that he
“feels like he has SIRVA after a flu shot in October.” Id. An examination was positive for
“R [sic] arm pain,” however. Id. at 86 (emphasis added). Petitioner was assessed with
right arm pain and was referred to physical therapy (“PT”) for such pain. Id. (emphasis
added). The PCP also noted that Petitioner “may need a note to get out of a future trip
due to the R [sic] arm pain.” Id.
6 There is no evidence of a prior visit for Petitioner’s vaccine-related left shoulder pain.
3

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 4 of 9
Petitioner did not seek shoulder-related care thereafter7 until February 2024 –
nearly two and a half years since his last visit for alleged vaccine-related shoulder pain
(in August 2021). Indeed, on February 20, 2024, Petitioner saw another provider at his
PCP’s office for an annual physical. Ex. 9 at 1. Petitioner reported several issues including
“shoulder issue, left shoulder.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner reported “dealing with a SIRVA
case after a flu shot in 2021 [sic]. Unfortunately, his previous PCP documented the wrong
arm so the case was thrown out. Symptoms were in the left arm, not his right. Would like
to pursue this again with proper documentation” Id. Despite a physical examination
revealing no left shoulder abnormalities, the PCP assessed Petitioner (in relevant part)
with a SIRVA. Id. at 2-3. No additional medical records have been filed.
III. Witness Declarations
Through witness declarations (some specifically drafted after my Order to Show
Cause highlighting the specific deficiencies in the record related to severity), Petitioner
maintains that he can establish the Act’s six-month requirement.
In his original witness declaration, Petitioner attests that he had pain in his shoulder
“the next day” following receipt of his flu shot that has “never subsided still to this day.”
Ex. 5 ¶ 4. He noted that he has never experienced this type of pain from a flu shot, “where
the soreness lasted more than 2 weeks.” Id. In his supplemental declaration (authored in
2024), he notes that he “absolutely did have and still continue[s] to have the same pain
to this day.” Ex. 6 ¶ 7.
Petitioner explains that he did not seek treatment between December 2020 and
August 2021 because “the shot from the pain clinic did not work whatsoever, and the
additional costs seem to be a waste of money to try again.” Ex. 5 ¶ 6. As support,
Petitioner explained that he was “responsible for the deductible for the shot at the pain
clinic.” Id.; Ex. 6 ¶ 7. Instead, he explains that he “tried light stretching and ice a lot.” Ex.
6 ¶ 7.
Petitioner also addresses the August 2021 notation reflecting a complaint of right
shoulder pain in his medical record. Ex. 6 ¶ 10. He states that his “attorney contacted
[him] about a mistake” and thus when he sought care with a new PCP in February 2024,
the treater “made a note . . . that [his] previous PCP made a mistake by noting [his] right
shoulder[;]” and “of course it has always been [his] left arm.” Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
7 Petitioner had a number of additional medical visits for unrelated issues throughout 2021-2023, during
which he did not complain of left shoulder issues. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 30 (a December 6, 2021 PCP
appointment for medication refills and sinus congestion); Ex. 4 at 13-15 (a June 6, 2022 ER visit for a cheek
laceration from playing pickleball); Ex. 10 at 68 (a June 15, 2023 PCP annual visit reporting lower back pain
from a recent car accident); Ex. 10 at 71 (an August 30, 2023 PCP visit for back pain).
4

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 5 of 9
In 2024, Petitioner’s co-worker submitted a witness declaration on Petitioner’s
behalf and notes that “every now and then over the years” since the 2020 vaccination,
Petitioner has told him his shoulder ‘“still hurts.’” Ex. 7 ¶ 5. This co-worker also noticed “a
few years ago” that Petitioner was unable to help out at work due to his shoulder pain. Id.
¶ 3. Another one of Petitioner’s co-workers attests that Petitioner’s “shoulder has not
gotten better” since the October 2020 flu shot. Ex. 8 ¶¶ 2, 4. The co-worker described an
incident where Petitioner dropped a door due to pain from his shoulder, but the co-worker
“d[id] not recall the date[;]” but he knew “it was months after he received the flu shot.” Id.
¶ 5. No additional affidavit and/or witness declaration evidence has been submitted.
IV. Applicable Legal Standard
Petitioners carry the burden of establishing the matters required in the petition by
a preponderance of the evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). One such requirement is
“documentation demonstrating that [the petitioner]8 ... suffered the residual effects or
complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than
6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see also Black v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the “potential
petitioner” must not only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional threshold, by
“submitting supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that a special
master has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case”), aff’d, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(internal citations omitted).
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the
availability of the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from
taking a vaccine.” H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2313–1, 2313–373, cited in Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Act prohibits finding a petition requirement “based on the claims of a petitioner
alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section 13(a)(1).
Medical records must be considered, see Section 13(b)(1), and are generally afforded
substantial weight. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25, 1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23
Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
8 Or other vaccinee, e.g., a minor or other person who is unable to represent his or her own interests, on
behalf of whom the claim is brought.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 6 of 9
are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
It is thus certainly the case that factual matters required to prove elements of a
Vaccine Act claim may be established by a mix of witness statements and record proof,
with the special master required to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184 (2013) (citing Section 12(d)(3);
Vaccine Rule 8), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Analysis
I note preliminarily that Petitioner not only had opportunity to prepare his claim prior
to filing, but was put on notice over the subsequent duration of the case that severity was
an issue to be addressed. Yet even after Respondent submitted his formal position in his
Rule 4(c) Report (and my preceding Order to Show Cause), Petitioner has not submitted
additional evidence or established why additional time is merited to do so. Petitioner has
thus now had a “full and fair opportunity” to support his position. Vaccine Rule 3(b).
There appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October
2, 2020, and he therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that his residual
symptoms continued for more than six months thereafter from the onset of his symptoms.
See, e.g., Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070, at
*2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012)
(dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's Guillain-Barré syndrome
resolved less than two months after onset). While to date Petitioner has been unable to
establish his claim that the onset of his symptoms occurred the day following his
vaccination as alleged, assuming arguendo9 that he could do so, he would also need to
establish his shoulder injury was extant as of April 2, 2021.
The record lacks preponderant evidence in favor of that finding. Prior to the
significant approximate eight-month gap in treatment, Petitioner had a PCP wellness visit
on December 9, 2020 (just roughly two months post vaccination). Ex. 3 at 46-48. While
he self-reported left shoulder pain at this time, an examination was normal and/or one
focused on the left shoulder was not performed. Id. at 47-48. And, no further treatment or
9 As previously noted above and described in my Order to Show Cause, the record does not appear to
support the conclusion that the onset of Petitioner’s post-vaccination left shoulder pain occurred within 48
hours of the subject vaccination, as Petitioner’s medical records do not describe onset with any particularity.
See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 8, 10-11; Ex. 3 at 46, 85. As the issue of severity is dispositive in this case, I do not find
it necessary to make a finding as to Table onset. But for ease of argument here regarding severity, I will
assume that a showing of Table-consistent onset has been met.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 7 of 9
medication was recommended to address his alleged ongoing left shoulder symptoms.
See id. This record thus does not support Petitioner’s assertions that his pain was ongoing
much longer after this visit, as his complaint is not corroborated by findings on
examination or additional recommended treatment for the left shoulder specifically. A lack
of recommended ongoing treatment likewise supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s
treater thought his left shoulder symptoms did not require much, if any, formal medical
treatment to resolve after this time.
More problematically, the medical records following the gap do not support the
conclusion that Petitioner experienced ongoing symptoms during the gap. Although when
Petitioner returned to care on August 30, 2021, he reported that he was seeking care
associated with a prior SIRVA, he had not been so previously assessed. See Ex. 3 at 85.
At most, Petitioner “wonder[ed]” if his left shoulder pain could be related to his flu
vaccination during his December 9, 2020 PCP visit, but this treater did not at that time (or
any time since then) conclude that Petitioner’s injury was related to his flu vaccination –
let alone call it SIRVA. Id. at 46-48.
Then, during Petitioner’s August 30, 2021 visit, an examination revealed right arm
pain, for which Petitioner received a recommended treatment course, including a referral
to PT. Ex. 3 at 85-86. No abnormalities regarding the left, vaccinated shoulder were noted.
See id. I noted in my Order to Show Cause that it was unclear from this record whether
the notation for right arm pain was made in error or was, in fact, intended to refer to a new
complaint concerning Petitioner’s right shoulder. ECF No. 13 at 5. To address this
discrepancy, Petitioner now contends (in his 2024 witness declaration) that this was a
mistake, and when he sought care with a new PCP in February 2024, the new treater
“made a note . . . that [his] previous PCP made a mistake by noting [his] right shoulder.”
Ex. 6 ¶ 10.
But Petitioner’s position is not fully supported by the contemporaneous medical
records. The record from February 20, 2024, does reflect a report that Petitioner’s
previous PCP, in fact, “documented the wrong arm . . . . Symptoms were in the left arm,
not his right[,]” but the complete context of the record shows that Petitioner also reported
his prior “SIRVA case” was “thrown out” because of this alleged error. Ex. 9 at 1. This
report, however, appears to have been made by Petitioner to a treater for the purpose of
litigation, as Petitioner also admits he “[w]ould like to pursue this again with proper
documentation.” Id. More so, this statement was made nearly four years post-vaccination,
over 11 months after initiation of the instant claim, and three months after my Order to
Show Cause. And despite Petitioner’s report of left shoulder pain linked to the flu vaccine
on February 20, 2024, Petitioner did not ultimately exhibit any left shoulder symptoms
7

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 8 of 9
upon examination. Id. at 2-3. Thus, these post-gap records do not bulwark Petitioner’s
severity arguments all that much.
This matter is otherwise complicated by the limited number of medical records filed
in this case. The existing record memorializes only five total medical visits for Petitioner’s
alleged shoulder pain – one of which occurred well into the pendency of the instant claim
and after a considerable gap in care (in February 2024). For instance, Petitioner’s August
30, 2021 record recommending PT (potentially for the non-vaccinated shoulder) stands
on its own; it followed a substantial gap in treatment, and was Petitioner’s last visit for left
shoulder pain before 2024. The fact that Petitioner’s PCP recommended PT to address
Petitioner’s alleged shoulder pain in August 2021 and Petitioner did not seek such further
treatment (for either shoulder), fails to bolster his argument that his injury lasted longer
than six months post vaccination.
I also do not find that the witness statements supplied by Petitioner overcome the
existing medical record discussed above, even if they merit some weight. For instance,
Petitioner’s purported explanation for the eight-month gap in care is reasonable but not
entirely persuasive in light of the entire record. Indeed, to explain the subsequent eight-
month gap in treatment from December 2020 through August 2021, Petitioner states that
he did not experience relief from his November 19, 2020 lidocaine injection, so he was
unwilling/unable to continue paying the cost of further treatment or another injection, as
he was responsible for the deductible. Ex. 5 ¶ 6; Ex. 6 ¶ 7. Petitioner’s assertions of
continuing pain are inconsistent with a lack of ongoing care both after December 2020
and then again after August 2021.
More so, Petitioner’s assertions of ongoing pain are otherwise uncorroborated, as
his witness declarations likewise do not describe ongoing pain during the relevant gap in
care, specifically, or leading up until April 2021. Despite stating that “every now and then”
since 2020, Petitioner still tells his co-worker he has pain, that does not describe exactly
when (between 2020 and the drafting of the declaration in 2024) Petitioner allegedly
reported this to his co-worker. Ex. 7 ¶ 5. Petitioner’s other co-worker also could not define
the timeframe of Petitioner’s ongoing pain with any particularity, generally recalling an
incident “months after the flu shot” in 2020 or thereafter where Petitioner dropped a door
and noting that Petitioner’s shoulder has “not gotten better.” Ex. 8 ¶¶ 4-5.
A description of pain precisely during the relevant treatment gap including through
the six-month severity “cut-off” (April 2, 2021), is something that a person close to
Petitioner could well have provided useful commentary upon. Given Petitioner’s limited
post-vaccination care, some contextual medical explanation was needed, but these
witnesses did not provide it. Additionally, these declarations were authored for the
8

Case 1:23-vv-00364-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/21/25 Page 9 of 9
purposes of litigation, after the filing of the instant claim, and even after the issuance of
my Order to Show Cause. I therefore do not give the declarations much, if any, weight in
resolving severity.
The record, therefore, does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA injury beyond December
2020. And Petitioner has failed to link the pain he experienced in August 2021 or
thereafter to his earlier pain and the flu vaccine he received.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has presented insufficient proof to establish the six-month severity
requirement. Section 11(c)(1)(D). Therefore, he is ineligible to pursue compensation
under the Program. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to
the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
9