In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0390V

Filed: April 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

PAULA ROBERTS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision 

Dismissing Her Petition; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA); Shoulder Injury; Vaccine 

Act Entitlement

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DISMISSAL DECISION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 14, 2019, petitioner 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 she suffered chronic left shoulder pain as a result 

of an influenza vaccine administered in 2013. Petition at 1. The petition indicates that 

petitioner only recently sought counsel and that at the time the petition was filed, 

complete medical records had been ordered but not received, and the statute of 

limitations was anticipated to run on March 19, 2019. Id. at 1-2. 

On April 25, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for a dismissal decision stating that 

after a review of additional medical records it was determined that petitioner did not 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 

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, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such 

material from public access. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the 

action in this case, undersigned is required to post it 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).

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

report symptoms of a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) within 

48 hours of her vaccination. Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision Dismissing Petition, filed 

April 25, 2019 (ECF No. 9). Petitioner states that she would therefore “be unable to 

prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. Under these 

circumstances, petitioner agrees “that to proceed further would be unreasonable and 

would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. 

Petitioner states that she “understands that a decision by the [undersigned] 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. 

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, petitioner must prove either 

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

Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was 

actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of 

the record does not disclose any evidence 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. § 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, and in accordance with § 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/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

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.