VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00136
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00136
Petitioner: Linden Barrett
Filed: 2025-01-23
Decided: 2025-11-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-01-25
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 23, 2025, Linden Barrett filed a pro se petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on January 25, 2022 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The public decision identifies petitioner as an adult but does not state an exact age.

The case was dismissed for failure to support or prosecute the claim. The public record states that petitioner did not file the medical records and proof needed to establish entitlement. The decision also referenced petitioner's contact with a law firm but no completed evidentiary presentation.

The dismissal was originally filed on November 6, 2025 and later reissued publicly on December 10, 2025 after the redaction process. No compensation was awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Adult pro se petitioner; influenza vaccine January 25, 2022; alleged SIRVA. DISMISSED for failure to prosecute/support claim with required medical records and proof. No award. Original decision November 6, 2025; public reissue December 10, 2025. Petition filed January 23, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00136-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-10
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/10/2025) regarding 12 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. (Main Document 13 replaced on 12/19/2025 to include reissued date and redaction footnote) (sw). Petitioner served via First Class mail on 12/22/2025 (ep).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00136-UNJ Document 13 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Originally Posted: November 6, 2025
Reissued for Public Availability: December 10, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINDEN BARRETT, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 25-136V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Linden Barrett, Walled Lake, MI, pro se.
Tyler King, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On January 23, 2025, Linden Barrett (“petitioner”), acting pro se, filed a claim in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that
she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 25, 2022. Id. at Preamble. Petitioner did not
file any accompany medical records or proof of vaccination to support her claim.
On May 6, 2025, the undersigned held a status conference with petitioner, where
petitioner explained that her case was being evaluated by a law firm familiar with the Vaccine
Program and set a deadline for August 12, 2025, for petitioner to file supporting documentation
of her alleged injury or to have an attorney enter their appearance in her case. Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 9). The undersigned also granted petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner did not file any supporting evidence on August 12, 2025, nor did an attorney
enter their appearance on her behalf. On October 1, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order to
Show Cause, which was mailed to petitioner by first class mail, ordering petitioner to
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this decision was initially filed on, November 6, 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 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 (2012)
(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of
the Act.

Case 1:25-vv-00136-UNJ Document 13 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3
communicate to my chambers by October 31, 2025 and/or file any evidence to support her
petition. Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 11).
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving
either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified
period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a
“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine
Program award based solely on his claims alone. Rather, the petitioner must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. 42 U.S.C. § 13(a)(1).
Petitioners bear a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof for both Table and Non-Table
Claims. Id.
It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and respond to order issued by a Special Master in
a case. Failure to do so is grounds for the dismissal of the claim. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 638 Fed. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. (1992), aff’d 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“[c]ontrolling
precedent considers dismissal appropriate when failure to act is deemed willful, when it is in
violation of court orders, when it is repeated, and when clear warning is given that the sanction
will be imposed”); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996) (“[n]ot
only did petitioner fail to meet the Court’s…deadline, but he also ignored the chief special
master’s ‘warning’ order, clearly placing petitioner on notice that failure to respond to the court’s
order…would result in dismissal of the claim.”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b) (“[t]he special
master or the court may dismiss a petition or claim therein for failure of the petitioner to
prosecute or comply with these rules or any order of the special master or the court.”).
In this case, petitioner is asserting a Table-Injury, but has not filed any medical records to
support her claim. Further, petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show cause,
which is also grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED for
insufficient proof and failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this decision to petitioner by U.S.
Mail to the following address:
Ms. Linden Barrett
855 S. Pontiac Trail
Unit 302
Walled Lake, MI 48390
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
2

Case 1:25-vv-00136-UNJ Document 13 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3
3