Hartshorn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJuly 21, 2025
Docket18-0007V
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hartshorn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Hartshorn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartshorn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2025).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-7V Filed: June 24, 2025

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NEENA HARTSHORN, * * Petitioner, * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bruce W. Slane, Esq., The Law Office of Bruce W. Slane. P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner. Jay T. Williamson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Roth, Special Master: On January 2, 2018, Neena Hartshorn (“Ms. Hartshorn” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. 2 (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), rotator cuff tendinitis, bicep tendinitis, infraspinatus and supraspinatus tendinitis, impingement syndrome and bursitis of the left shoulder caused by the adverse effects of an influenza vaccination and/or administration thereof received on November 21, 2013. 3 Petition at 1, ECF No. 1.

1 Because this Ruling 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 Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted on the website. 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 (2018). 3 Petitioner initially alleged that subsequent vaccinations significantly aggravated the injury she allegedly sustained on November 21, 2013. The significant aggravation claims were later waived. Tr. 4, 70, 117-19. Petitioner keeps journals of her activities of daily living, physical conditions, illnesses, pain, interactions with others, feelings and relationships. Her journals, in combination with the contemporaneous medical records, provide preponderant evidence of the following: petitioner received a flu vaccine on November 21, 2013, developed an infection at the vaccination site on or about December 3, 2013 which temporarily caused pain and an inability to move her left arm, was treated with antibiotics and prednisone with resolution of the infection and return of full mobility of her left arm. Thereafter, intermittently and on rare occasions, she experienced left arm pain at the vaccination site that did not affect her activities of daily living but continued for a few years. The evidence contained in her journals and the medical records refute any claims of aggravation of left arm pain following two subsequent flu vaccines on September 10, 2014 and October 14, 2015. Had her counsel reviewed and produced the complete journals and medical records prior to the hearing, the issues in this case could have been quickly resolved without a hearing and a detailed Ruling. Tr. 221-34.

For the reasons set forth below, I find the onset of petitioner’s left arm pain was on or about December 3, 2013. An expert is necessary to determine whether petitioner had a definable injury that satisfies the six-month severity requirement. Petitioner’s SIRVA claim is dismissed for the reasons set forth below.

I. Procedural History

The petition was filed on January 2, 2018 4 and was initially assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). See Petition, ECF Nos. 1, 5. Petitioner filed medical records and affidavits on January 22, 2018. Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-9, ECF No. 7.

Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report (“Resp. Rpt”) on December 19, 2018, arguing that this was not an on-Table SIRVA claim. Resp. Rpt at 1, ECF No. 19.

The matter was reassigned to me on March 18, 2019. ECF No. 21. During a status conference held on June 26, 2019, significant gaps in the medical record were discussed along with issues involving onset and the severity requirement. ECF No. 22. Respondent’s counsel raised reasonable basis in proceeding with the claim based on the filings. Id. at 7. Petitioner was ordered to file a status report on how she intended to proceed and/or additional medical records. Id. at 8.

Petitioner filed medical records on August 19, 2019 and August 27, 2019. Pet. Ex. 10-14, ECF Nos. 23, 25. In a status report filed on August 27, 2019, petitioner confirmed the filing of all

4 On March 21, 2017, the Vaccine Injury Table was amended. The changes included the addition of SIRVA as a presumptive injury for intramuscularly injected vaccines if, among other conditions, the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the condition occurs within forty-eight hours of vaccination. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). As stated in the Table’s qualifications and aids to interpretation (“QAI”), “SIRVA manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the upper arm.” 42 C.F.R § 100.3(c)(10). The amended Table governs petitions filed on or after March 21, 2017, the effective date of the final rule. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(e)(1); 82 Fed. Reg. 11321 (Feb. 22, 2017) (announcing “that the effective date is delayed until March 21, 2017”). Petitioner’s claim here was filed within the 8-year look-back period that applies when the Vaccine Injury Table is amended. § 16(b).

2 requested medical records and argued that good faith and reasonable basis existed for proceeding with the claim. She requested a fact hearing. ECF No. 27. Respondent was ordered to file a status report indicating whether he would be willing to participate in a fact hearing.

In his status report filed on October 11, 2019, respondent repeated the various issues raised in his Rule 4(c) Report, questioned whether a fact hearing would be appropriate based on the record, and again raised the lack of reasonable basis for the claims. However, he indicated that he would participate in a fact hearing. ECF No. 28.

At a status conference held on December 9, 2019, the parties were advised that the hearing would address both onset and the severity requirement. Petitioner’s counsel advised that petitioner kept a journal, and relevant portions would be filed. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report proposing dates for a fact hearing in May 2021 and petitioner was ordered to file her journal entries. ECF No. 31. A fact hearing was ultimately set for May 4, 2021. ECF No. 33.

On February 7, 2020, petitioner filed 1,704 pages of journal entries purportedly from 2010 through 2015. Pet. Ex. 16, ECF No. 34.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hartshorn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartshorn-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2025.