In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-2019V

UNPUBLISHED

TROY BODAK,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 8, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner.

Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT1

On December 31, 2019, Troy Bodak filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a results of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on 

October 31, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Fact Ruling 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Petitioner has not established by 

preponderant evidence that the onset of his shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of 

vaccination, as required for a Table SIRVA claim. And because a non-Table claim may 

not be possible, I shall require Petitioner to show cause why the claim in its entirety should 

not be dismissed.

I. Relevant Procedural History

Two years after the claim’s initiation, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report 

challenging compensation, arguing (among other things) that Petitioner could not 

demonstrate that he had suffered a Table SIRVA within the appropriate timeframe. ECF 

No. 39 at 7-8. To resolve this issue, a schedule was established for a fact ruling on the 

record. ECF No. 41. 

On August 9, 2021, Petitioner filed a brief in support of his claim. ECF No. 43. 

Specifically, Petitioner asserted that the medical records (at least those the Petitioner 

accepts as correct) and witness affidavits collectively demonstrate that his left shoulder 

pain began within 48 hours of his vaccination. Id. at 7,18-22. Petitioner further submitted 

that the records indicate that his pain was limited to his left shoulder. Id. at 23-24. In 

response, Respondent maintained the contrary, arguing that contemporaneous medical 

records placed onset “well after forty-eight hours elapsed.” ECF No. 44 at 1; see also 

ECF No. 44 at 11-14. Respondent further asserted that Petitioner’s pain extended beyond 

the left shoulder in which the vaccine administered. Id. at 17-18. This matter is now ripe 

for adjudication. 

II. Issue

At issue is whether (a) Petitioner’s first post-vaccination onset (specifically pain) 

occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and 

Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA and (b) whether Petitioner’s pain was 

limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. 

(2017) (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed 

in the QAI); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv) (pain and reduced range of motion limited to the 

vaccinated shoulder). 

III. Authority

Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act 

Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, 

conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, 
3

and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.

Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy 

evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to 

facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in 

the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally 

contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 

F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they 

should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-

1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule 

does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be 

accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of 

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25, 

1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd 

per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as 

incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the 

patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 

1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records 

may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. 

Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for 

inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later 

testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that 

happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to 

document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events 

when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did 

not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), 

aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that 

is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y 

of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). 

The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined. 

Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley 

v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
4

A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an 

injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though 

the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly 

recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may 

be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of 

the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury 

Table.” Id. 

The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, 

testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La 

Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within 

the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical 

records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question 

that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).

IV. Finding of Fact

I make these findings after a complete review of the record, including all medical 

records, affidavits, expert reports, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence 

filed.3 Specifically, I note the following:

• On October 31, 2018, Petitioner received a flu vaccination in his left deltoid 

at St. Francis Hospital. Ex. 2 at 2. 

• On November 12, 2018, Petitioner presented to the Emergency Department 

in the evening. Ex. 3 at 6. Petitioner reported, “I had a flu shot about three 

weeks ago, it still hurts, and today I am unable to move my arm.” Id. at 11. 

Petitioner’s pain was “progressively worse” and “began after flu shot that he 

believes was improperly placed and caused pain.” Id. at 16. A duration of “3 

weeks” was noted. Id. There were no signs of neurological deficits, neck or 

back pain, or joint swelling. Id. at 17. Petitioner exhibited limited range of 

motion and tenderness. Id. The physician’s impression was “shoulder pain. 

Likely rotator cuff tendinopathy. Doubt any relation to flu shot.” Id. at 18.

Petitioner was excused from work for three days and prescribed 

prednisolone and tramadol. Id. at 9, 15. 

• Petitioner followed up at his primary care office with Dr. Ryan Colligan on 

November 13, 2018. Ex. 4 at 9. Dr. Colligan documented that “p[atient] 

states that he got a flu shot 3 weeks ago at St. Francis. He states that he 

3 While I have not specifically addressed every medical record, or all arguments presented in the parties’ 

briefs, I have fully considered all records as well as arguments presented by both parties.
5

was fine for the first two weeks but for the past week he has had severe 

pain and decreased range of motion.” Id. Duration was noted to be three 

weeks. Id. The physical exam showed, “[left] shoulder severely limited in 

Flexion, extension, and abduction.” Id. at 10. An x-ray of Petitioner’s left 

shoulder was ordered. Id. 

• Petitioner again returned to his primary care office on November 16, 2018, 

this time meeting with Dr. Bliss Yoon. Ex. 4 at 6. The visit was “follow up for 

adhesive capsulitis” which had been “occurring for 1 week.” Id. Petitioner 

now reported “he was driving last Friday on 11/9/2018 when the pain came,” 

and onset was noted as “11/9/18 accident at work.” Id. Petitioner’s left 

shoulder pain radiated up the left side of his neck and was “located in the 

upper arm, shoulder, and entire arm.” Id. 6, 7. Dr. Yoon noted that the x-ray 

ordered on November 13, 2018, was normal. Id. Dr. Yoon assessed 

Petitioner with possible adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff injury, biceps 

tendon strain, and shoulder strain, though thought it was unlikely to be 

adhesive capsulitis due to extreme guarding. Id. at 7. Petitioner was referred 

to physical therapy and recommended to follow up with Dr. Yoon in one 

month. Id.

• On November 27, 2018, Petitioner followed-up with Dr. Yoon. Ex. 4 at 3. 

The history from November 16, 2018, was repeated and Dr. Yoon noted 

that she had seen Petitioner on November 20th4for his left shoulder. Id. 

Following examination, Dr. Yoon noted “left rotator cuff tendinitis. Likely 

supraspinatus. Also potential for subscapularis but patient is too 

apprehensive and will not allow for active or passive ROM of the left 

shoulder...unlikely to be adhesive capsulitis” Id. at 4. No neck pain was 

noted. Id. Dr. Yoon documented that Petitioner’s injury was “likely from work

since pain onset came about driving home after work.” In addition to 

referring Petitioner to physical therapy, Dr. Yoon wrote a note for light duty. 

Dr. Yoon instructed Petitioner to follow up with Worker’s Compensation. Id.

• Approximately two months after referral, Petitioner presented for a physical 

therapy consultation on January 29, 2019. Ex. 8 at 19. The therapist, 

Deborah Kargl, noted “sudden onset of severe L shoulder pain when lifting 

something at work,” with an onset date of “11/09/20195.” Id. Petitioner also 

reported that “he had flu shot about two weeks prior to the pain and thought 

they injected into his arm too high.” Id. His entire arm became numb 

intermittently. Id. at 21. Petitioner could only tolerate minimal movement of 

his left shoulder at this consultation and “appeared to be in too much 

radicular pain for adhesive capsulitis.” Id. at 22. The physical therapist 

suggested “further testing of cervical area for radicular problem or 

4 This date is incorrect; Petitioner was actually seen by Dr. Yoon on November 16, 2018. See Ex. 4 at 6. 

5 This date appears to be a typographical error—meant to be “11/9/2018,” based on prior medical records 

and the fact that a 2019 date remained in the future.
6

impingement of left shoulder.” Id. Petitioner was recommended to visit an

orthopedist prior to continuing physical therapy. Id. 

• On February 11, 2019, Petitioner presented to a new primary care office for 

a complete physician exam to establish care. Ex. 5 at 18. “Sirva s/p flu 

vaccine” was documented under past medical history. Debra Losey, PA 

examined Petitioner and documented: “routine adult health examination 

without abnormal findings.” Id. He did not report any pain or request any 

pain medication for his shoulder. He was found to have normal motor 

strength for upper and lower extremities as well as full range of motion. Id. 

at 19. 

• On March 24, 2019, Petitioner presented to the Emergency Department for 

his migraines. Ex. 8 at 1. Upon examination, “normal ROM in all four 

extremities; non-tender to palpation” was noted. Id. at 5. Petitioner had full 

strength and intact sensation. Id.

• On March 25, 2019, Petitioner presented to Debra Losey, PA, for a rash 

and no shoulder complaints were noted. Ex. 5 at 16-17.

• On April 30, 2019, Petitioner returned to Debra Losey, PA, reporting pain in 

his shoulder from a flu shot six months ago. Ex. 5 at 13. He reported that 

the pain started immediately after administration of the flu shot. Id. at 14. 

Petitioner advised that he had a lawsuit pending but that it was not a 

workman’s compensation case. Id. PA Losey noted that “it is unclear why” 

Petitioner had not yet been evaluated at this office for his arm pain. Id. She 

was concerned that his left shoulder pain was associated with a different 

mechanism of action than the flu shot injection or that Petitioner was 

developing frozen shoulder again. Id. at 13. A full shoulder exam could not 

be done due to pain. See id. at 14. Petitioner was referred to physical 

therapy and for x-ray and MRI imaging. Id. at 13. 

• Petitioner followed-up with Debra Losey, PA on June 28, 2019. Ex. 5 at 9. 

Petitioner’s MRIs were taken on June 18, 2019 and showed partial tears of 

the supraspinatus and infraspinatus, as well as tendinopathy. Id. at 10, 30-

32. Petitioner was referred to an orthopedist. Id. at 9. Petitioner attributed 

his rotator cuff and tendinopathy to his employer “not accommodating [him]

after the flu shot,” stating that his “arm was numb” and he could not use it. 

Id. at 10. 

• On July 22, 2019, Petitioner presented to Dr. Schafer for an orthopedic

consultation. Ex. 6 at 7-8. Petitioner reported feeling shoulder pain “directly 

after” his flu shot, and “he went to the emergency room [] that same day.” 

Id. at 8. Petitioner reported shoulder pain and some associated neck pain. 

Id. Petitioner lacked “10 degrees from contralateral side” and “ER 25 deg 

lacking 5 to 10 degrees from contralateral side.” Id. at 9. Dr. Schafer 
7

reviewed Petitioner’s MRIs and observed degenerative change with

tendinopathy and partial tearing in the supraspinatus and more substantially 

in the infraspinatus tendons. There was glenohumeral joint narrowing and 

a small joint effusion with some cystic and subchondral degenerative 

change in the region of the greater tuberosity, as well as moderate change 

in the left acromioclavicular joint with undersurface spurring. Id. at 10. 

Petitioner received a subacromial corticosteroid injection with an immediate 

and significant decrease in pain. Id. at 10-11. Based on Petitioner’s history, 

Dr. Schafer felt that Petitioner may have received his flu vaccine in his

rotator cuff muscle or bursa. Id. at 11. Dr. Schafer also assessed that

Petitioner’s tendinitis, partial-thickness tearing, and cystic changes were 

likely “long-standing in nature” and “aggravated” after receiving the injection 

while continuing with work. Id. Dr. Schafer referred Petitioner to physical 

therapy. Id. 

• On September 5, 2019, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Schafer. Ex 5 at 21. 

Petitioner reported continued pain but improved range of motion. Id. at 22. 

He had not started physical therapy and Dr. Shafer did not want to give him 

a repeat injection. Id. at 24. “I have given him a new prescription for physical 

therapy and the importance of doing this was discussed with the patient 

today. I again told the patient that I do not think that he has a surgical issue 

given the fact that he only has small partial tearing and has shown 

improvement in his symptoms.” Id. 

The medical records contain a number of entries that are inconsistent with a finding 

that Petitioner’s onset occurred in the timeframe set by the SIRVA Table claim. Petitioner 

did not report immediate onset of pain to a medical professional until six months and nine 

months after vaccination, respectively. These reports were made later in time and are not 

consistent with more contemporaneous records. And when Petitioner reported pain 

immediately after vaccination on April 30, 2019, he also noted the existence of a pending 

lawsuit and six months of pain despite multiple intervening medical visits during which no 

shoulder pain or limited range of motion were found or reported.6 The history Petitioner 

provided of his shoulder pain nine months after vaccination (July 22, 2019) included 

inaccuracies such as his report that he presented to the emergency room the same day 

as his vaccination. See Ex. 6 at 8. 

Compounding the lack of a contemporaneous report of onset close in time to 

vaccination are the inconsistent onset reports in Petitioner’s medical records and in his 

6 Further belying the reliability of this later report is Petitioner’s explanation that he established care at a

new primary care office because his prior doctors were not doing anything for his shoulder. Ex. 1 at ¶18. 

Yet when he presented to establish care on February 11, 2019, undergoing a full physical examination, he 

reported no shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 18-19. 
8

Worker’s Compensation claim.7 Most contemporaneous to his vaccination, on November 

12, 2018, Petitioner reported that his pain had been progressively worse for about three 

weeks, after what he believed to be a misplaced vaccination (placing onset or vaccination 

prior to October 31, 2018). Ex. 3 at 16. The next day (November 13th) at his primary care 

office, Petitioner reported that he had been fine for two weeks, but had severe pain in the

past week (now placing onset only a few days before November 13, 2018). Ex. 4 at 9-10. 

Other records announced even later onsets. During his two follow-up appointments

for shoulder pain at his primary care office, Petitioner referenced lifting at work and driving 

on November 9, 2018, identifying that date as when his pain began. Ex. 4 at 3, 6-7.

Petitioner then prepared a Worker’s Compensation claim on November 27, 2018, in which 

he identified November 12, 2018 as his date of injury.8 Ex. 12 at 36, 58. On January 29, 

2019, Petitioner reported at his physical therapy consultation that he had a sudden onset 

of pain at work and he had a flu shot about two weeks prior to the pain. Onset of 

“11/9/2019” was noted (likely a typo for the date November 9, 2018). Ex. 9 at 18. It was 

not until six months post-vaccination, in the midst of a period in which he was not obtaining 

treatment, did petitioner revise his onset report to reflect immediate pain after the 

vaccination. Ex. 5 at 13-14. 

All of the above preponderantly supports an onset more than 48 hours postvaccination – outweighing Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary. One of Petitioner’s 

primary assertions is that Dr. Colligan’s and Dr. Yoon’s records are simply incorrect, and 

he submitted a supplemental affidavit correcting the record. ECF No. 43 at 18-19; Ex. 13. 

In it, he states that he never reported that he was fine for the first two weeks, never 

reported a work accident, and never reported that pain occurred while he was driving 

home from work. Id. ¶¶16, 18, 19, 22. Thus, in Petitioner’s estimation the history 

documented in Dr. Yoon’s record “doesn’t make any sense.” Id. at ¶22. 

However, even if I were to accept Petitioner’s explanation as to why these records 

are not trustworthy or incorrect, other records similarly fail to support his onset claim. For 

example, petitioner still reported “sudden onset of severe [left] shoulder pain when lifting 

something at work” during his physical therapy consultation on January 29, 2019, with a 

documented onset of November 9. Ex. 8 at 19. Petitioner further reported a flu vaccine 

7Throughout the record, it appears that Petitioner may have been confused as to when he received his 

vaccination, or may have been counting weeks differently, as two full weeks after October 31, 2018 is 

November 14, 2018. Petitioner may have considered the week he received his vaccination as a week, i.e. 

week one being October 31, 2018-November 4, week two being November 5-November 11, and week 

three being November 12 on. 

8

I am aware of Petitioner’s argument that this was later revised to 10/31/2018 with the mechanism of injury 

changed to reflect the flu shot. However, this change was made in November 2019 - shortly before the filing 

of this matter and a year after petitioner’s vaccination. 
9

“two weeks prior to the pain.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). While Petitioner questions the 

therapist’s qualifications or credentials in his brief, that argument provides no persuasive 

reason to give such record proof less weight. It would be unreasonable to ignore the 

contemporaneous treatment records, in favor of the conclusion that somehow multiple 

independent physicians or treaters misunderstood Petitioner’s reports and/or 

manufactured histories. 

Petitioner also submitted additional affidavits to support his claim of immediate 

onset following the vaccination: the affidavit of his employer at that time – Moeen Sharaf, 

the affidavit of his romantic partner – Tina Rollins, and the affidavit of his landlord, Janice 

Torneo. Ex. 14; Ex. 15; Ex. 16. While the affidavits from Ms. Rollins and Ms. Torneo

facially support Petitioner’s onset claim, they are inconsistent with the medical records. 

Ms. Rollin’s statements that Petitioner had a painful time getting dressed, had difficulty 

sleeping, and cried out in pain during the week immediately following vaccination (Ex. 15 

at ¶¶7-10), is squarely contradicted by Petitioner’s reports that he was fine for two weeks

and that he had a flu vaccine two weeks prior to the pain. Ex. 8 at 21; Ex. 4 at 9. On the 

other hand, the affidavit from Ms. Sharaf is more consistent with Petitioner’s reports to his 

medical providers. Ms. Sharaf submitted and affirmed her handwritten workplace records

that indicate Petitioner did not report shoulder pain to her until November 8, 2018 and 

November 12, 2018. Ex. 12 at 18; Ex. 14. Although after-the-fact statements can 

sometimes be deemed persuasive when consistent and compelling, the affidavits 

submitted in this matter do not establish immediate onset. 

I acknowledge that the standard applied to SIRVA claims on the onset issue is

fairly liberal, and will often permit a determination that onset began within the 48-hour

timeframe set by the Table, based on records prepared a few months after vaccination,

and/or corroborated by sworn witness statements intended to amplify otherwise-vague

records. However, not every SIRVA claim can be so preponderantly established, and not 

where the medical record contradicts a Petitioner’s allegations. Such is the case here. 

While some contemporaneous records do support a Table SIRVA onset, the 

preponderance of all evidence in its totality does not.

In addition to the onset issue, the parties in this matter disagree as to whether 

Petitioner’s pain was limited to his left shoulder – and this too likely prevents a Table claim 

from going forward. Petitioner argues that there is only one instance of pain radiating to 

petitioner’s neck documented by Dr. Yoon, and no other evidence to suggest Petitioner’s 

pain was not limited to his left shoulder. ECF No. 43 at 23-25. However, based on my 

review of the entire record, it appears that Petitioner’s symptoms extended beyond his 

left shoulder. At several appointments, Petitioner reported pain in his entire arm, pain 
10

radiating into his neck/associated neck pain, and that his entire arm became numb at 

times. Ex. 4 at 6-7; Ex. 5 at 10; Ex. 6 at 8; Ex. 8 at 21. 

Accordingly, I find (a) Petitioner has not preponderantly established that onset of 

his shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and (b) Petitioner’s shoulder 

pain was not limited to his left shoulder. Petitioner cannot proceed in this action with his 

Table SIRVA claim. I also have doubts as to whether any causation-in-fact claim could 

succeed. Petitioner shall therefore show cause why the claim as a whole should not be 

dismissed. In so doing, he shall identify other cases in which similarly-situated parties 

have prevailed on a non-Table SIRVA claim under comparable circumstances.

V. Conclusion

Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is hereby dismissed. Petitioner shall, by no later 

than Monday, October 10, 2022, show cause as to why his claim as a whole should 

not be dismissed. Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s show cause filling will be 

due 30 days thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master