In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-273V

UNPUBLISHED

KIANDRA STROUD,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 2, 2022

Show cause; failure to prosecute;

influenza (flu) vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On January 7, 2021, Kiandra Stroud filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342

(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on 

November 6, 2018. ECF No. 1. Due to Petitioner’s failure to prosecute her claim, this 

case is DISMISSED.

Relevant Procedural History

In the petition, Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury from a flu 

vaccination but did not provide any medical history for treatment of the injury. ECF No. 

1. Petitioner did not submit any statutorily required supporting documentation with the 

petition. On January 12, 2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file 

these outstanding documents. ECF No. 5. 

On March 2, 2022, Petitioner filed some medical records and a Statement of 

Completion. ECF Nos. 14, 15. On the following day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling 

on the Record indicating that indicated that “[n]o additional records are available or will 

1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

be filed in this case. [Petitioner’s] Counsel has reviewed the records and now believes 

the case is ready for disposition.” ECF No. 16. Petitioner reiterated that “no additional 

evidence will be presented by petitioner” and “requests that the Chief Special Master 

issue a Decision based on the current record.” Id. 

A status conference was held on March 14, 2022, to discuss this motion. During 

the status conference, Petitioner’s counsel confirmed that no additional information 

would be submitted in this case, including the statutorily required affidavit. I ultimately 

deferred ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to allow the standard case review process to 

proceed. ECF No. 19. 

On May 31, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause noting that Petitioner was 

missing medical records supporting the severity requirement, that his shoulder injury 

persisted for more than six months, in additional to an affidavit. ECF No. 21. The Order 

warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Petitioner did not file 

the outstanding documents or otherwise respond to the order. 

On July 29, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a response to the Order to Show 

indicating that she had sent the Order to Show Cause to Petitioner by certified mail, by 

other means, and followed up without success. ECF No. 23. Despite many months of 

effort, counsel indicated that she has been unable to contact Petitioner and, thus, could 

not obtain the outstanding documents identified in the Order to Show Cause. Counsel 

requested that a decision be issued resolving this case.

Grounds for Dismissal

It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and respond to orders issued by a special 

master in a case. The failure to do so – whether on account of attorney error, inaction, 

or because a petitioner has failed to stay in contact and/or communicate with counsel -

is grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

638 Fed. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

26 Cl. Ct. 439 (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 & Human 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. The chief special master clearly did not abuse his discretion in dismissing this 

case for failure to prosecute”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b) (“[t]he special master or the 

court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of the petitioner to prosecute 

or comply with these rules or any order of the special master or the court.”).

Petitioner was specifically advised in my May 31, 2022 Order to Show Cause that 

failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure to communicate with her

counsel which prevents compliance with those order) risked dismissal of the claim. As 

noted in the response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner has been out-of-touch 
3

with her counsel since May 10, 2021. Because Petitioner has continued to disregard my 

orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.

As an alternative basis for dismissal, among other requirements for 

compensation in the Vaccine Program, Petitioner must establish the severity 

requirement, that her injury persisted for more than six months or resulted in inpatient 

hospitalization and surgical intervention. § 300aa—11(c)(1)(D)(i). The Order to Show 

Cause detailed the lack of evidence to establish the severity requirement. Since that 

order, Petitioner has not filed any additional medical records to support the severity 

requirement. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to compensation in the 

Vaccine Program.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk 

shall enter judgment accordingly.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3

If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, she must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment 

pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”