VICARI v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-746V
ANTHONY VICARI,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: January 2, 2026
Paul J. Campson, Campson & Campson, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CLAIM1
On May 13, 2024, Anthony Vicari 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 he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September
6, 2023. ECF No. 8 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
On December 5, 2025, I ordered Petitioner to show cause why his Table SIRVA
claim should not be dismissed. ECF No. 23. In particular, I noted that the lack of any
recorded situs for Petitioner’s vaccinations, plus other ambiguities in the medical records,
could prevent Petitioner from being able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
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 1:24-vv-00746-UNJ Document 26 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that the flu vaccine was administered in his right arm. Id. at 2. This was related to the fact
that Petitioner had received a non-covered vaccine in the intervening time before he
reported shoulder pain. Id. Further, Petitioner had experienced a prior right shoulder injury
ten months before vaccination. Id. at 3. Petitioner also described an onset of right
shoulder 	pain 	as 	both 	before 	vaccination 	and 	approximately 	three 	weeks 	after
vaccination. Id. at 3-4. I therefore concluded that on this record, Petitioner had not yet
established by a preponderance of the evidence the necessary elements of a Table claim.
Id. at 4.
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his case,
stating that “[u]pon further investigation after considering the Court’s assessment of the
claim, [P]etitioner believes that pursing a claim within the Vaccine Injury Program is
unlikely to result in a recovery sufficient to justify further litigation” and that “[i]n these
circumstances a dismissal at this time would serve the interest of the parties, and
conserve judicial resources and those of the Vaccine Program.” ECF No. 24 at 1.
Petitioner further states that he understands that a decision dismissing his Petition will
result in a judgment against him and that he has been advised that such a judgment will
end his rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 1-2.
Vaccine Rule 21(b) provides that I may dismiss a petition or any claim therein at
the request of Petitioner, on terms that I consider proper, by issuance of a decision
pursuant to Section 12(d)(3). 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). But
examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner
suffered a “Table Injury.” And the same record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion
or any other persuasive evidence supporting the conclusion 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, a 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.
Case 1:24-vv-00746-UNJ Document 26 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For these reasons, in accordance with Vaccine Rule 21(b) and Section
12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act, 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.
Case 1:24-vv-00746-UNJ Document 26 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3