VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00753
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00753
Petitioner: Junious Nielsen
Filed: 2024-05-13
Decided: 2025-04-21
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and blood in his stool
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Junious Nielsen, an adult, filed a pro se petition alleging he suffered migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and blood in his stool as a result of HPV vaccinations and influenza vaccinations administered in 2022 and 2023. The case was initially filed on May 13, 2024. After an amended petition specified influenza vaccines, the respondent filed a report recommending dismissal. The court issued an Order to Show Cause on December 10, 2024, directing the petitioner to submit evidence supporting his claim by January 24, 2025. Mr. Nielsen failed to comply with this order. The court reviewed the medical records provided, which included complaints of fatigue in 2020 and headaches/migraines in July 2021, predating the alleged vaccinations. The records did not document any diagnosis or complaints of shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool, nor did they show residual effects of migraines or fatigue lasting more than six months post-vaccination or resulting in hospitalization. Consequently, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a cognizable injury or meet the severity requirements of the Vaccine Act. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof and failure to prosecute due to the lack of response to the Order to Show Cause.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00753-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-21
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/3/2025) regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via e-mail on 4/22/2025. (sw)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Originally Filed: March 3, 2025
Reissued for Public Availability: April 21, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JUNIOUS NIELSEN, * PUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 24-0753V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal Decision; Failure to Prosecute;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Insufficient Proof.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Junious Neilsen, pro se, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Heather Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 13, 2024, Junious Nielsen (“Petitioner”) filed a petition (“Complaint”),2 pro se,
for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (2018).
In the petition, Petitioner alleges he suffered migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and
blood in his stool as a result of “HPV” vaccinations administered on September 23, 20223 and
October 17, 2023. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). However, in the attached cover sheet, the dates of
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this Decision was initially filed on March 3, 2025, and the
parties were afforded 14 days to propose redactions. The parties did not propose any redactions.
Accordingly, this Decision is reissued in its original form for posting on the Court’s website.
2 Petitioner identified his initial filings and amended filings as “Complaints.” Since he alleged a
vaccine injury, these filings were identified as Petitions when filed into the docket, consistent
with 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.
3 The handwriting is difficult to read. The year of the date of this vaccination is not clear. It
appears to be either 2022 or 2023.
1

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 2 of 7
vaccination are listed as October 17, 2022 and September 23, 2023.4 Cover Sheet at 1 (ECF No.
1-1). On May 30, 2024, Petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that he suffered migraines,
shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and blood in his stool as a result of influenza (“flu”) vaccines.
Amended (“Am.”) Petition at 1 (ECF No. 9). In this amended petition, the dates of vaccination
are not specifically identified; instead, Petitioner notes that the dates of vaccination were listed in
the “original Complaint.” Id. at 2.
Based on the reasons set forth below and in the Show Cause Order dated December 10,
2024, and for failure to comply with the Show Cause Order, the undersigned DISMISSES this
case for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof.
Moreover, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed to prove by preponderant
evidence that the vaccinations allegedly administered to him caused any injury. See Althen v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, the undersigned
finds Petitioner is not entitled to compensation.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History5
As described above, Petitioner filed his petition on May 13, 2024, followed by medical
records and an amended petition. Petition; ECF Nos. 7-8, 10, 14;6 Am. Petition. Petitioner filed
a status report in August 2024. Petitioner’s Status Report, filed August 29, 2024 (ECF No. 23)
(“Pet. Aug. Status Rept.”).
This case was reassigned to the undersigned on October 9, 2024. Notice of Reassignment
dated Oct. 9, 2024 (ECF No. 16). A status conference was held on October 9, 2024. Order dated
Oct. 9, 2024 (ECF No. 17). During the status conference, Petitioner indicated that to the best of
his knowledge, all medical records had been filed. Id. at 2. Given that, Respondent was directed
to file a responsive pleading within 60 days. Id.
On December 8, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, stating “this case is not
appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Act” and recommended the case be
dismissed. Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 2 (ECF No. 20). Upon review of Petitioner’s
petition, medical records, and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, the undersigned found deficiencies
in Petitioner’s claim and issued an Order to Show Cause on December 10, 2024. Order to Show
Cause dated Dec. 10, 2024 (ECF No. 21). Petitioner was directed to submit any medical records
or other evidence showing why his petition should not be dismissed by no later than Friday,
January 24, 2025. Id. at 2. Petitioner was instructed that a failure to file any evidence in
4 These dates of vaccination are also supported by the medical records filed by Petitioner.
5 On the same date that he filed this petition, Petitioner also filed a separate petition, Case No.
24-0759V, alleging injury from HPV vaccinations.
6 The undersigned will use ECF numbers to reference Petitioner’s records.
2

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 3 of 7
response to the Show Cause Order by Friday, January 24, 2025 would be interpreted as an
inability to provide supporting documents for his claim and the petition would be dismissed. Id.
Petitioner has not filed any additional documents in compliance with the Order to Show
Cause.
This matter is ripe for adjudication.
B. Factual History
1. Medical Records
Because Petitioner alleges he suffered migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and
blood in his stool as a result of flu vaccinations in 2022 and 2023, the undersigned largely
focuses on those conditions.7 Additionally, although proof of other vaccinations were provided
by Petitioner, the undersigned only mentions and discusses the flu vaccines alleged in the
Petition.
On June 11, 2020, Petitioner presented to Jasdeep Bajwa, D.O., for a “follow-up visit
regarding concern for cancer screening in additional to a chronic onset of snoring, non-
refreshfull [sic] sleep and difficulty concentrating throughout the day.” ECF No. 14 at 1-2. He
reported he was snoring often and waking up “feeling tired and not refreshed.” Id. at 1. With
regard to his issues related to concentration, Dr. Bajwa wrote “20 pound weight gain and
generalized fatigue could be a symptom of possible anemia or hypothyroidism” and ordered
bloodwork. Id. Dr. Bajwa also ordered a sleep study to rule out obstructive sleep apnea. Id.
Petitioner provided seven pages8 of VA Medication History and VA Problem List. ECF
No. 10. This list included medication ibuprofen 400 mg “as needed for pain/inflammation” that
was filled once in January 2021 before expiring and acetaminophen 500 mg “as needed for pain”
that was filled once in November 2020 and once in January 2021 before expiring. Id. at 4-5.
The source of Petitioner’s pain was not indicated. See id.
On July 6, 2021, Petitioner presented to Jennifer Maguire, M.D., for a neurology referral
for his headaches/migraines. ECF No. 14 at 4. Petitioner reported a throbbing sensation in the
frontal and temporal sides of his head. Id. He described it as “someone [] getting a vice grip and
squeezing his head.” Id. His headaches occurred four times per week, lasting approximately 30
minutes. Id. He reported difficulty focusing, occasional blurry vision, some nausea and
vomiting a few times with the headaches, phonophobia, and photophobia, and he found sitting
and water helpful. Id. Assessment was tension headache. Id. at 5. Dr. Maguire opined
Petitioner “has some features that are consistent with a tension headache and some other features
7 Allegations related to the HPV vaccines and the undersigned’s rulings relevant to those
vaccines are set forth in Case No. 24-0759V.
8 These are pages 20, 21, 22, 25, and 26 out of 425 pages. Petitioner also filed pages 374 and
375, which is a list of vaccines received by Petitioner. The remaining 418 pages were not filed.
3

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 4 of 7
that may be more suggestive of a migraine headache.” Id. Petitioner was started on low-dose
amitriptyline at night and instructed to follow up. Id.
Petitioner received a flu vaccination in his left deltoid on October 17, 2022. ECF No. 7 at
1; ECF No. 10 at 1.
Petitioner’s problem list with the VA included migraine as of January 20, 2023. ECF No.
10 at 6. Acetaminophen 65 mg “as needed for headache” was ordered and filled in January
2023. Id. at 4. No other records were provided to support this diagnosis or prescription.
On July 25, 2023, Petitioner saw Alissa Correll, M.D. ECF No. 7 at 2. Petitioner
reported left flank/side pain that would worsen when lying down on it and with flexion and better
with stretching. Id. Petitioner did not report or complain of migraines, shoulder injury, rashes,
fatigue, or blood in his stool at this visit. See id. He was noted to have severe hepatic steatosis.
Id. On physical examination, Petitioner exhibited tenderness in lumbar back, with no pain with
flexion/extension. Id. at 3-4. Physical examination was otherwise unremarkable. Id. Petitioner
“request[ed] to update all shots.” Id. at 2. Petitioner did not receive a flu vaccine at this visit.
See id. at 2-4.
On September 23, 2023, Petitioner received a flu vaccination in his left deltoid. ECF No.
7 at 5.
Petitioner provided a list of “current health issues,” printed from his medical provider’s
online portal in May 2024. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. Migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and
blood in his stool are not listed. See id. Petitioner also provided a list of medications prescribed
in 2023, including ibuprofen 600 mg prescribed in December 2023 “as needed for [p]ain.” Id. at
3. The location of the pain was not indicated. See id.
No additional medical records have been provided.
2. Petitioner’s August 2024 Status Report
Petitioner filed one status report dated August 21, 2024. Pet. Aug. Status Rept. at 1.
Petitioner’s August 2024 status report stated he attached medical records to his status report;
however, none were included in his mailing. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Alleged Injuries
Petitioner alleges he suffered migraines, shoulder injury, rashes, fatigue, and blood in his
stool as a result of his flu vaccinations in October 2022 and September 2023. Petition at 1; Am.
Petition at 1. The undersigned will address each of these in turn.
Federal Circuit precedent establishes that it is appropriate to first determine the nature of
an injury in certain cases. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1346
4

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 5 of 7
(Fed. Cir. 2010). A petitioner must provide preponderant evidence that an injury occurred in
order to prevail for said injury.
1. Shoulder Injury, Rashes, and Blood in Stool
Here, the medical records do not provide preponderant evidence that Petitioner suffered a
shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool as a result of a vaccination.
First, the medical records do not document Petitioner ever received a diagnosis of a
shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool. Nor do Petitioner’s medical records document
complaints of a shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool.
Under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner cannot establish entitlement to compensation based
solely on his assertions; rather, a vaccine claim must be supported either by medical records or
by the opinion of a medical doctor. § 13(a)(1). There is no evidence other than Petitioner’s
assertions in his petition and amended petition that he suffered a shoulder injury, rashes, or blood
in his stool.
Furthermore, to be entitled to compensation, Petitioner must show he
(i) suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than [six] months after the administration of the vaccine, or
(ii) died from the administration of the vaccine, or (iii) suffered such illness,
disability, injury, or condition from the vaccine which resulted in inpatient
hospitalization and surgical intervention.
§ 11(c)(1)(D).
Here, the medical records do not support a finding that Petitioner has “suffered the
residual effects” of a shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool “for more than 6[six] months
after the administration of the vaccine.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(i). No medical record documented any
complaints or findings relating a shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool.
The medical records also do not support a finding that Petitioner “suffered such illness,
disability, injury, or condition from the vaccine which resulted in inpatient hospitalization and
surgical intervention.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(iii). No hospitalization or surgical records were provided.
Overall, there is no evidence in Petitioner’s medical records establishing that he was
diagnosed with a shoulder injury, rashes, or blood in his stool, or that he suffered the residual
effects of said alleged injuries for more than six months, or that said injuries resulted in an
inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. Thus, the undersigned finds that Petitioner
has failed to provide preponderant evidence of a cognizable injury and has failed to meet the
severity requirement under the Vaccine Act. And any claim arising from these vaccines and
injuries must be dismissed.
5

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 6 of 7
2. Migraines
With regard to Petitioner’s alleged injury of migraines, the medical records show
Petitioner complained of migraines/headaches in July 2021, prior to receiving the alleged
vaccinations. Then, in January 2023, three months after Petitioner’s October 2022 flu
vaccination and nine months before his September 2023 flu vaccination,9 migraines were added
to Petitioner’s VA “problem list;” however, no medical records from a medical doctor treating or
diagnosing Petitioner with migraines were filed.
Similar to Petitioner’s alleged injuries of shoulder injury, rashes, and blood in his stool,
there is no medical record evidence showing Petitioner suffered from headaches/migraines “for
more than [six] months after the administration of the vaccine.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
Nor is there medical record evidence to support Petitioner “suffered [migraines] from the
vaccine which resulted in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(iii).
Again, no hospitalization or surgical records were provided.
Therefore, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed to provide preponderant
evidence to meet the severity requirement under the Vaccine Act. Any claim arising from these
vaccines and injury must be dismissed.
3. Fatigue
Similarly, Petitioner’s medical records document complaints of fatigue in June 2020,
more than two years prior to his October 2022 flu vaccination and more than three years prior to
his September 2023 flu vaccination.10 However, he did not receive a diagnosis of fatigue nor
were there any objective findings consistent with fatigue. No other medical records mention or
discuss fatigue.
The undersigned finds the medical records do not support a finding that Petitioner
suffered from fatigue. Petitioner cannot establish entitlement to compensation based solely on
his assertions. § 13(a)(1).
Nor do the medical records support a finding that Petitioner suffered from fatigue “for
more than [six] months after the administration of the vaccine” or that fatigue “resulted in
inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.” § 11(c)(1)(D)(i), § 11(c)(1)(D)(iii).
Therefore, Petitioner has failed to provide preponderant evidence to meet the severity
requirement under the Vaccine Act. Any claim arising from these vaccines and injury must be
dismissed.
9 Even if Petitioner alleged the flu vaccines significantly aggravated his migraines, Petitioner still
would not prevail. The statute defines “significant aggravation” as “any change for the worse in
a pre-existing condition which results in markedly greater disability, pain, or illness accompanied
by substantial deterioration in health.” § 33(4). Petitioner has not established by preponderant
evidence “any change for the worse.”
10 See supra note 9.
6

Case 1:24-vv-00753-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/21/25 Page 7 of 7
4. Any Other Condition or Injury
Petitioner has not provided evidence that he suffered any injury as a result of his October
2022 and/or September 2023 flu vaccinations that satisfy the severity requirement in the Vaccine
Act. Petitioner did not file any medical records after his vaccinations other than an unrelated
visit to Dr. Correll in July 2023 that relates to left flank pain. Petitioner averred that all medical
records were provided and filed. See Order dated Oct. 9, 2024, at 2.
B. Failure to Prosecute
When a petitioner fails to comply with court orders to prosecute his case, the court may
dismiss the case. 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);
Vaccine Rule 21(c); see also Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 889 F.2d 1180,
1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal of case for failure to prosecute for counsel’s failure to
submit pre-trial memorandum); Adkins v. United States, 816 F.2d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(affirming dismissal of cases for failure of party to respond to discovery requests).
Vaccine Program cases that have been dismissed for failure to respond to an Order to
Show Cause include but are not limited to: Byrd v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 778 F. App’x
924 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Ghasemipor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-17V, 2020 WL
7497878 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 23, 2020); Flores v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
157V, 2020 WL 5798502 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2020); Button ex rel. W.S.B. v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1391V, 2017 WL 2876099 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2017);
Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1367V, 2020 WL 6738118 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 19, 2020), mot. for rev. denied, 153 Fed. Cl. 642 (2021).
Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s Order to show cause, directing
Petitioner to medical records or other evidence showing why his petition should not be
dismissed. Thus, the undersigned dismisses Petitioner’s case for failure to prosecute.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient evidence and for failure to
prosecute. In the absence of a timely filed motion for review pursuant to Vaccine Rule 23, the
Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this Decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
7