In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-182V

Filed: July 23, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

MICHAEL KAHN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

 

Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On January 31, 2019, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood 

Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that he suffered left

shoulder injuries as a result of his receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October

4, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On January 28, 2020, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, 

recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 26.) On April 16, 2021, I issued a 

finding of fact which held that there was not preponderant evidence to support 

petitioner’s allegation that he experienced onset of left shoulder pain within 48 hours of 

his October 4, 2016 flu vaccination. (ECF No. 47.) 

On July 21, 2021, petitioner file a motion for a decision dismissing his claim. 

(ECF No. 51.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science 

supporting his case has demonstrated that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled 

to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and that “to proceed further would be 

unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the Respondent, and 

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will 

be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002. See 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be 

redacted from public access.

Special Master Horner

Petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition; Influenza 

(flu) vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)
2

Vaccine Program.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioner understands that 

a decision by the Special Master dismissing his petition will result in a judgment against 

him. [Petitioner] has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the 

Vaccine Program. Petitioner understands that he may apply for costs once his case is 

dismissed and judgment is entered against him.” (Id. at 1.) 

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either 

(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table 

– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually

caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy his burden of 

proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a 

medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical 

sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the 

injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and 

injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from 

ruling for petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records 

or medical opinion. 

For the reasons discussed in my prior April 16, 2021 finding of fact, petitioner did 

not suffer a Table injury of SIRVA. (ECF No. 47.) Petitioner’s medical records do not 

otherwise support his allegation of a vaccine-caused injury by a preponderance of the 

evidence and he did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of his 

allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie

case of entitlement to compensation.

CONCLUSION

This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter 

judgment in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Daniel T. Horner

 Daniel T. Horner

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.