United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

L.O. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 29, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1257V

L.O., Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: August 28, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Timothy J. Mason, Law Office of Sylvia Chin-Caplan, LLC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Jamica M. Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1

On September 7, 2022, L.O. 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a human papillomavirus vaccine on September 13, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On August 27, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Dismissal Decision. (ECF No. 35). In it, Petitioner moves for the voluntary dismissal of her case, noting that she understands that, unless otherwise stated, the dismissal of her case will be with prejudice and will result in the entry of a judgment pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11. Id. at 1.

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 Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence to establish 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 SIRVA 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 Petitioner was injured by a vaccine.

For these reasons, in accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b)(1) and Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act, this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof, with prejudice. The Clerk of Court 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.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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, 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 (2018).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.