VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01369 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01369 Petitioner: Bethel Stevens Filed: 2023-08-21 Decided: 2026-03-27 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-09-28 Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: On August 21, 2023, Bethel Stevens filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 28, 2021 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The case began in the Special Processing Unit, but it did not resolve as a conceded Table SIRVA claim. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on May 3, 2024 opposing compensation. The government identified problems with proof that the vaccine had been administered in the allegedly injured right shoulder and with proof that shoulder pain began within the 48-hour onset period required for a Table SIRVA claim. The case was later reassigned from the Special Processing Unit to Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey because those issues required further litigation. At a March 10, 2026 status conference, the special master discussed the onset problem with the parties. The record suggested that the relevant shoulder pain may have begun in July 2021, before the September 2021 influenza vaccination. After further investigation, Ms. Stevens moved for dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(b) on March 27, 2026. She stated that she could not prove entitlement for SIRVA, that continuing the case would waste judicial resources, and that she understood judgment would end her Vaccine Program rights while preserving her ability to reject judgment and pursue any civil action rights. Special Master Dorsey dismissed the petition with prejudice on March 27, 2026. No vaccine-injury compensation was awarded. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine (September 28, 2021) allegedly causing right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). DISMISSED with prejudice March 27, 2026 after petitioner moved under Vaccine Rule 21(b). Respondent's Rule 4(c) report opposed compensation because petitioner had not shown by preponderant evidence that the flu vaccine was administered in the injured right shoulder or that shoulder pain began within 48 hours; status conference record indicated possible right-shoulder onset in July 2021, before vaccination. SM Nora Beth Dorsey. Petition filed August 21, 2023. No award. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01369-0 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-21 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/27/2026) regarding 34 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01369-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 27, 2026 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BETHEL STEVENS, * * Petitioner, * No. 23-1369V * v. * Special Master Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DECISION1 On August 21, 2023, Bethel Stevens (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018).2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 28, 2021. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). This matter was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). Activation and Reassignment Order dated Dec. 20, 2023 (ECF No. 9). On May 3, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report arguing against compensation. Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 2 (ECF No. 17). Respondent raised issues with Petitioner’s site of vaccination and onset, arguing Petitioner had not provided preponderant 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 1 Case 1:23-vv-01369-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 2 evidence that (1) she received the flu vaccine in her injured right shoulder and (2) her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 9-14. Thereafter, the parties briefed the issues. See Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Pet. Mot.”), filed Sept. 13, 2024 (ECF No. 20); Resp. Response to Pet. Mot., filed Nov. 12, 2024 (ECF No. 22). Given these issues, this matter was reassigned out of SPU to the undersigned on February 24, 2026. Order Reassigning Case dated Feb. 23, 2026 (ECF No. 27); Notice of Reassignment dated Feb. 24, 2026 (ECF No. 28). The undersigned held a status conference on March 10, 2026. Order dated Mar. 10, 2026 (ECF No. 31). After a review of the record, the undersigned noted her concerns regarding onset, preliminarily finding onset to be in July 2021, prior to the September 2021 flu vaccination at issue. Id. at 1-3. Petitioner was directed to indicate how she would like to proceed. Id. at 3-4. On March 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b). Pet. Mot. for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition, filed Mar. 27, 2026 (ECF No. 33). Petitioner reported that “an investigation of the facts supporting her case has demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program for either SIRVA” and “to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. “Petitioner understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a Judgment against her . . . [that] will end all her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2. Lastly, Petitioner indicated she “does intend to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future” and “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program Judgment against her.” Id. at 2. Under Vaccine Rule 21(b), which governs voluntary dismissals of a petition with entry of judgment, “The special master or the court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special master or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3).” Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1). Unless stated otherwise, the dismissal “is with prejudice” and “will result in a judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a).” Vaccine Rule 21(b)(2). The undersigned GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b), this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01369-cl-extra-11314127 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-21 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10846760 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 27, 2026 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BETHEL STEVENS, * * Petitioner, * No. 23-1369V * v. * Special Master Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DECISION 1 On August 21, 2023, Bethel Stevens (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018). 2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 28, 2021. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). This matter was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). Activation and Reassignment Order dated Dec. 20, 2023 (ECF No. 9). On May 3, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report arguing against compensation. Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 2 (ECF No. 17). Respondent raised issues with Petitioner’s site of vaccination and onset, arguing Petitioner had not provided preponderant 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 1 evidence that (1) she received the flu vaccine in her injured right shoulder and (2) her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 9-14. Thereafter, the parties briefed the issues. See Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Pet. Mot.”), filed Sept. 13, 2024 (ECF No. 20); Resp. Response to Pet. Mot., filed Nov. 12, 2024 (ECF No. 22). Given these issues, this matter was reassigned out of SPU to the undersigned on February 24, 2026. Order Reassigning Case dated Feb. 23, 2026 (ECF No. 27); Notice of Reassignment dated Feb. 24, 2026 (ECF No. 28). The undersigned held a status conference on March 10, 2026. Order dated Mar. 10, 2026 (ECF No. 31). After a review of the record, the undersigned noted her concerns regarding onset, preliminarily finding onset to be in July 2021, prior to the September 2021 flu vaccination at issue. Id. at 1-3. Petitioner was directed to indicate how she would like to proceed. Id. at 3-4. On March 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b). Pet. Mot. for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition, filed Mar. 27, 2026 (ECF No. 33). Petitioner reported that “an investigation of the facts supporting her case has demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program for either SIRVA” and “to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. “Petitioner understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a Judgment against her . . . [that] will end all her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2. Lastly, Petitioner indicated she “does intend to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future” and “intends to elect to reject the Vaccine Program Judgment against her.” Id. at 2. Under Vaccine Rule 21(b), which governs voluntary dismissals of a petition with entry of judgment, “The special master or the court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein at the petitioner’s request on terms that the special master or the court considers proper by issuance of a decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3).” Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1). Unless stated otherwise, the dismissal “is with prejudice” and “will result in a judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a).” Vaccine Rule 21(b)(2). The undersigned GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b), this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master 2