VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-vv-00272
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-vv-00272
Petitioner: Kyle Jordan
Filed: 2026-02-17
Decided: 2026-02-18
Vaccine: COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccination date: 2021-01-12
Condition: injuries alleged after COVID-19 vaccination
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 17, 2026, Kyle Jordan filed a pro se petition alleging injuries after COVID-19 vaccinations received on January 12, 2021, and February 9, 2021. He alleged that symptoms began on December 9, 2021.

The case did not proceed to medical causation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran explained that COVID-19 vaccines were not covered vaccines under the Vaccine Injury Table for purposes of a Vaccine Program petition. The ruling also noted that, if the December 9, 2021 onset date controlled, the Vaccine Act's three-year limitations period would have expired on December 9, 2024, more than a year before the petition was filed.

On February 18, 2026, the Chief Special Master dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. No vaccine-injury compensation was awarded. The public decision was reissued for publication on March 17, 2026.

Theory of causation field:
COVID-19 vaccines on January 12 and February 9, 2021; alleged symptoms beginning December 9, 2021. DISMISSED. COVID-19 vaccines were not Vaccine Program covered vaccines, and the ruling also noted a potential limitations problem if December 9, 2021 was the symptom-onset date. No causation analysis and no compensation. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition February 17, 2026; original decision February 18, 2026. Pro se adult petitioner.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-vv-00272-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/18/2026) regarding 6 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made outside CM/ECF via other appropriate means as provided by RCFC 5(b)(2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:26-vv-00272-UNJ Document 9 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 26-272V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
KYLE JORDAN, *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Originally filed: February 18, 2026
* Reissued for Public Availability:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * March 17, 2026
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kyle Jordan, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1
On February 17, 2026, Kyle Jordan filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that
receiving COVID-19 vaccines on January 12, 2021, and February 9, 2021, caused him to suffer
various injuries beginning on December 9, 2021.3 ECF No. 1 (Petition).
1 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), this decision was first issued on February 18, 2026, 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 Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa—10 through 34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or
“the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa.
3 Petitions for compensation in the Vaccine Program must be filed within 36 months of “the date of the occurrence
of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of such injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—
16(a)(2). This statute of limitations period is triggered by the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms not by when Petitioner
first believed or discovered that his symptoms were related to the vaccine. Cloer v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
654 F.3d 1322, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). It has also been held that failure to be advised of the Vaccine
Program does not support equitable tolling of the statute of limitations period for an untimely filed petition. Speights
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-2619V, 2013 WL 5944084, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 17, 2013).
Thus, assuming Petitioner’s stated onset of symptoms on December 9, 2021, the latest he could have timely filed his
petition would have been December 9, 2024. Failure to file the petition by this date is another ground to dismiss this
case.

Case 1:26-vv-00272-UNJ Document 9 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 2
To be entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate that
he or she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). § 11(c)(1)(A); 42
C.F.R. § 100.3 (Table). Vaccines are added to this Table only after two steps are taken by the
Department of Health and Human Services and by Congress. First, compensation in the Program
can only be awarded to individuals “who have been injured by vaccines routinely administered to
children.” H.R. Rep. 99-908, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344 at 3. Thus, the vaccine at issue must be
designated by the Centers for Disease Control as appropriate for children or pregnant women (even
if it is also administered to adults). Then, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may
promulgate regulations to amend the Vaccine Injury Table to add the new vaccine. § 14(c)(1).
Second, Congress must enact an excise tax on each vaccine listed on the Table to provide funds
for compensation awarded to successful vaccine claims. A vaccine becomes the basis for a claim
in the Vaccine Program on the date the tax is enacted. 26 U.S.C. § 4131(a); see also Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103–66, § 13632(a)(3), 107 Stat. 312 (1993).
The COVID-19 vaccine does not yet appear on the Table and is therefore not covered by
the Vaccine Program. As a result, at the present time, no petitioner can demonstrate that he
“received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table” based upon a COVID-19 vaccine.
Section 11(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. See, e.g., Danberry v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-778V, 2020 WL 6375330 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28, 2020)
(dismissing a claim seeking compensation for injuries incurred after receiving Pneumovax-23 and
Shingrix—two vaccines that are not set forth in the Table).4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the aforementioned reasons, the Petition is dismissed. In the absence
of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL
ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Petitioner may review the Court’s notice about COVID-19 vaccine claims on its website:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-claims-office-special-masters.
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
2