In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1393V

Filed: September 21, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

LINDA JOY DAVIS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision 

Dismissing her Petition; Shoulder 

Injury related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”); 

Pneumococcal Vaccination; 

insufficient Proof of Causation; 

Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial 

Without Hearing; Special Processing 

Unite (“SPU”)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master:

On September 11, 2019, Linda Joy Davis filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 42 U.S.C. §300aa10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a Prevnar-13 pneumococcal 

vaccination on September 22, 2016. Petition at 1. 

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the 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, Pub. L. 

No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In 

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 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, that material will be removed 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).
On August 31, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition, 

specifically indicating she no longer wants to pursue her claim. ECF No. 21. Petitioner 

explained that she had been diagnosed with lung cancer, and that she wished to “focus 

on her lung cancer treatment and not worry further about her SIRVA claim.” Id. at 1. 

Further, Petitioner qualified for Medicaid and does not want to jeopardize her Medicaid 

status with any recovery related to her vaccine injury. Id. Petitioner “understands that a 

decision by the Chief Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgment 

against her. [She] has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the 

Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2. The Motion further stated that Respondent “reserves the 

right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), to question the good faith and reasonable 

basis of her claim and to oppose, if appropriate, the application for costs.” Respondent 

otherwise does not oppose this motion.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that 

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

corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually 

caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record, 

however, does not disclose that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record 

does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating 

that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on 

the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical 

records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain 

medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was 

injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A),

petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for 

insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.