In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-819V 

Filed: April 22, 2016 

Not to be Published 

************************************* 

DOROTHY LINGINFELTER, * 

 * 

Petitioner, * Petitioner’s motion for a decision

 * dismissing her petition granted; 

 v. * influenza vaccine; arm pain; 

 * bursitis; tendinitis

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

************************************* 

Maximillian J. Muller, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Ann D. Martin, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION1

On July 31, 2015, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 15, 2014 caused her to develop arm pain, bursitis, and tendinitis. See Pet. at ¶ ¶ 4, 10. 

Petitioner sought medical treatment for depression on November 7, 2014, three weeks after 

vaccination, but did not complain about her arm at that visit. Med. recs. Ex. 7, at 20. The first 

complaint she made to a doctor about her arm was on February 6, 2015, four months after 

vaccination, when she said her right arm had hurt from shoulder to wrist ever since she had a flu 

shot on October 15, 2014. Med. recs. Ex. 3, at 4. 

 

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

special master intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special 

masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial 

information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioners have 14 

days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special 

master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the special 

master shall redact such material from public access. 
2 

On April 22, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, 

stating “she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” 

The undersigned grants petitioner’s motion and DISMISSES this case for failure to make 

a prima facie case of causation in fact. 

DISCUSSION

To satisfy her burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must prove 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 HHS, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Althen, the Federal Circuit quoted its opinion 

in Grant v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992): 

A persuasive medical theory is demonstrated by “proof of a logical 

sequence of cause of and effect showing that the vaccination was 

the reason for the injury [,]” the logical sequence being supported 

by a “reputable medical or scientific explanation[,]” i.e., “evidence 

in the form of scientific studies or expert medical testimony[.]”

418 F.3d at 1278. 

 Without more, “evidence showing an absence of other causes does not meet petitioners’ 

affirmative duty to show actual or legal causation.” Grant, 956 F.2d at 1149. Mere temporal 

association is not sufficient to prove causation in fact. Id. at 1148. 

 Petitioner must show not only that but for her flu vaccination, she would not have had 

right arm pain, bursitis, and tendinitis, but also that her flu vaccination was a substantial factor in 

causing her right arm pain, bursitis, and tendinitis. Shyface v. Sec’y of HHS 165 F.3d 1344, 

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

The Vaccine Act does not permit the undersigned to rule for petitioner based on her

claims alone, “unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa13(a)(1). In the instant action, petitioner, although given the opportunity to do so, did not file an 

expert report, and her medical records do not substantiate her allegations. Particularly damaging 

to petitioner’s allegations is the fact that she never spoke to any medical doctor about her right 

arm hurting until four months after vaccination, even though she saw a medical professional to 

obtain treatment for depression three weeks after vaccination. In addition, petitioner has prevaccination (November 9, 2011) medical records substantiating repetitive falls that injured her 

right arm. Med. recs. Ex. 6, at 5, 19. 

The undersigned GRANTS respondent’s Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition 
3 

and DISMISSES this case for petitioner’s failure to make a prima facie case under the Vaccine 

Act. 

CONCLUSION

This petition is DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to 

RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

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

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