Schrader v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 26-255V Filed: June 4, 2026 Reissued for Public Availability: June 29, 2026

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANITA MARIE SCHRADER, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Anita Marie Schrader, pro se, for petitioner. Heather L. Pearlman, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION 1

Roth, Special Master:

On February 13, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”) 2 alleging that she developed a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), “resulting from medical malpractice in the administration of the Shingrix vaccination [she] received on July 16, 2024.” Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1.

A telephonic status conference was held on March 9, 2026. ECF No. 9. Petitioner was informed that the Shingrix vaccine is not covered by the Program. Therefore, the parties were informed that the petition must be dismissed. Respondent was ordered to file a Motion to Dismiss by April 8, 2026, and petitioner was to file a response, if deemed necessary, by May 26, 2026. Id.

On March 26, 2026, respondent filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11. Petitioner

1 This Decision originally issued on June 4, 2026, and the parties were afforded fourteen days to propose redactions in accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b). Petitioner did not request any redactions. Accordingly, this Decision is reissued in its original form for posting on the Court’s website. 2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

did not file a response.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must first show, as a preliminary matter, that she “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (the ‘Table’).” Edwards v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1682V, 2023 WL 3775021, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2023) (citing § 11(c)(1)(A)). In other words, if the vaccine petitioner received is not covered by the Table, she cannot be compensated for injuries she alleges were caused by that vaccine.

Petitioner alleges that she was injured by the “Shingrix,” or shingles, vaccine. ECF No. 1 at 1; Bohle v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-1904V, 2025 WL 604526, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 27, 2025) (noting that Shingrix is a shingles vaccine). Though “[c]hickenpox vaccines are understood to be the ‘varicella vaccines’ listed on the Table,” Bohle, 2025 WL 604526, at *1 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 4132(a)(1)(K)), “[s]hingles vaccines have been distinguished from chickenpox vaccines in previous decisions dismissing petitions seeking compensation for injuries from a shingles vaccine,” id. (citing Scanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13- 219V, 2013 WL 5755061 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 27, 2013)). See, e.g., Fowler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1611V, 2023 WL 5952034, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 17, 2023) (finding no jurisdiction over a claim stemming from a shingles (Shingrix) vaccine); Charter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1404V, 2021 WL 4205702, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 3, 2021) (same); Danberry v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-778V, 2020 WL 6375330, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28, 2020) (same). “As summarized in one opinion affirming a special master’s dismissal of a shingles vaccine claim, ‘[e]ven though the shingles vaccine is a type of “varicella vaccine,” it is routinely administered to adults, [and] the Secretary has never added it to the Vaccine Injury Table.’” Bohle, 2025 WL 604526, at *1 (quoting Scanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 114 Fed. Cl. 135, 143 (2013)).

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner failed to demonstrate that she received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Injury Program. Thus, this case is dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master