VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00861
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00861
Petitioner: Sharon Beasley
Filed: 2024-10-22
Decided: 2024-11-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-10-09
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Sharon Beasley filed a petition alleging she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 9, 2021. She claimed pain began at a low level upon vaccination and increased significantly within 48 hours. The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The court noted deficiencies in her claim, specifically insufficient evidence of immediate pain following the vaccine. An order to show cause was issued, requiring Ms. Beasley to address these issues or explain why her claim should not be dismissed. On October 18, 2024, Ms. Beasley moved to dismiss her own petition, acknowledging she could not prove entitlement to compensation. She stated that proceeding further would be unreasonable and a waste of resources, and that she intended to reject the program judgment to file a civil action. The court found that the record lacked sufficient medical records or opinions to demonstrate a Table SIRVA or to prove causation-in-fact. Consequently, her motion to dismiss was granted, her claim was denied, and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. Judgment was entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00861-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-26
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/22/2024) regarding 27 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00861-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0861V
SHARON BEASLEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 22, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On June 9, 2023, Sharon Beasley 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 she suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on October 9, 2021. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 23-24. Regarding pain onset, she
insisted that she suffered pain at a level of two out of ten upon vaccination, increasing to
seven within 48 hours of vaccination. Petition at ¶¶ 5, 25; see also Exhibit 1 at ¶¶ 6, 18
(Petitioner’s declaration).
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 (2018).

Case 1:23-vv-00861-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2
After determining there were multiple deficiencies related to Petitioner’s claim,
including insufficient evidence of immediate (i.e., within 48 hours) pain after receipt of the
vaccine at issue,3 I issued an order to show cause on August 23, 2024. ECF No. 23. I
required Petitioner to address these deficiencies or to otherwise show cause why her
claim should not be dismissed due to insufficient proof. Id.
On October 18, 2024, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition. ECF
No. 26. In the motion, Petitioner acknowledged that “she will be unable to prove that she
is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 1) and “to proceed
further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the
[R]espondent, and the Vaccine Program” (id. at ¶ 2). Petitioner expressed her
understanding that “a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in
a judgment against her . . . [and] will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at
¶ 3. She indicated that she “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program judgment
against her and elect to file a civil action.” Id. at ¶ 5.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that she
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine, a “non-Table
claim.” See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). 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, the record does not contain medical records or a medical opinion
sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA
or proven causation-in-fact. For these reasons, and 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. The Clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. & (c)(10) (requirements for a Table SIRVA following receipt of the influenza
vaccine); Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (setting out the
three-pronged, including the need for an appropriate temporal relationship, which must be met to establish
causation).
4 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