Williford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided June 16, 2025·No. 19-0579V·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-579V Filed: May 20, 2025

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GINGER K. WILLIFORD, * * Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * William Cochran, Jr., Esq., Black McLaren, et al., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner. Neil Bhargava, Esq., U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

FACT RULING1

On April 17, 2019, Ginger K. Williford (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to 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”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on December 28, 2017. In the alternative, petitioner alleges she suffered a shoulder injury that was caused in fact by the vaccine. Petition at 1, ECF No. 1.

During the pendency of this matter, petitioner filed several of affidavits, as well as affidavits from multiple witnesses. Petitioner and most of her witnesses testified at hearing. The affidavits, fact hearing testimony, other evidence filed, and contemporaneous medical records present many inconsistencies regarding the events that occurred and petitioner’s delay in seeking treatment for five and a half months. However, this ruling only addresses onset. When special

1 This Ruling has been designated “to be published,” which means I am directing it to be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Ruling’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Ruling will be available to the public. Id. 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). masters are confronted with discrepancies, they are encouraged to hold a hearing to evaluate the testimony of the affiants. See Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779- 780 (2006). Thus, a fact hearing was held on June 8, 2022.

Having carefully considered the affidavits, testimony, and all other evidence presented as it relates to onset only, petitioner developed aching and soreness immediately upon receipt of her flu vaccination.

I. Procedural History

The petition was filed on April 17, 2019 and assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). ECF Nos. 1, 4. Medical records were filed along with petitioner’s affidavit and a statement of completion. Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-14, ECF Nos. 7-9.

During a status conference on June 21, 2019, additional outstanding medical records were identified and ordered. ECF No. 10 at 1. The origin of petitioner’s pain and injury was discussed, and reasonable basis was raised. Respondent was ordered to file a status report advising of his tentative position once the medical records were filed. Id. at 2.

Thereafter, petitioner’s counsel emailed the Chief Special Master’s chambers expressing his reticence in filing additional records due to reasonable basis being raised. He requested a preliminary ruling from the Chief Special Master on reasonable basis. An Order was issued on July 15, 2019 denying that request, but petitioner was permitted to wait for respondent’s formal review of the case before filing additional records. ECF No. 11.

Respondent filed a status report on June 15, 2020 advising that he intended to defend the case, and filed his Rule 4(c) Report on August 14, 2020, recommending against compensation. ECF Nos. 19-20. The case was then transferred from SPU and reassigned to the undersigned. ECF Nos. 21-22.

Thereafter, petitioner filed additional medical records and the affidavits of Vikki Morgan and Ben Mills. Pet. Ex. 15-21, ECF No. 22; Pet. Ex. 22-23, ECF No. 25. She also filed two articles related to shoulder injuries and vaccines. Pet. Ex. 24-25, ECF No. 26.

At a status conference on November 10, 2020, the issues related to petitioner’s medical records were again discussed in detail. This included, but was not limited, to the significant delay before petitioner sought medical care, an apparent escalation of her symptoms after May 2018, and a motor vehicle accident in which petitioner sustained injuries to her neck and shoulders. ECF No. 28. Petitioner filed a status report on December 23, 2020, advising that she intended to proceed by filing additional fact witness affidavits to address the concerns raised during the status conference. ECF No. 29.

Petitioner then filed affidavits from David Mills, Cindy Griffith, and Carlton Andrew Williford, as well as supplemental affidavits from herself, Vikki Morgan, and Ben Mills. Pet. Ex. 26-31, ECF Nos. 31, 34.

2 Respondent filed a status report on April 21, 2021, maintaining his intent to defend the case. ECF No. 36. Petitioner then requested to file a motion for a fact finding, but respondent recommended a fact hearing if petitioner wished to continue to pursue the case noting that reasonable basis had already been raised. ECF Nos. 37, 39.

A status conference was held on June 29, 2021 to discuss additional issues that were raised by the affidavits filed and to determine how to proceed. Petitioner was ordered to file all Google searches related to shoulder injuries and/or SIRVA and a status report advising if she intended to proceed with a motion for ruling on the record or a fact hearing. ECF No. 43.

On September 7, 2021, petitioner filed a letter and CV from her treating orthopedist, Dr. Randal Troop. Pet. Ex. 33-34, ECF No. 48. Petitioner filed what purported to be her Google search histories on November 11, 2021. Pet. Ex. 35-39, ECF No. 52.

A fact hearing was held on June 8, 2022. Following the hearing, respondent filed petitioner’s Facebook photos that were presented during the hearing. Respondent’s Exhibit (“Resp. Ex.”) A, ECF No. 56. Petitioner was ordered to file additional evidence, and she filed Facebook photos as well as an affidavit. Pet. Ex. 40-46, ECF Nos. 60-61.

After both parties agreed, the record was closed for purposes of a fact ruling on September 28, 2022. ECF Nos. 63-65.

This matter is now ripe for a fact ruling.

II. The Factual Record

A. Petitioner’s Medical Records

Petitioner had no prior left shoulder injury or complaints. Her past medical history included trouble sleeping, leg and ankle swelling, and arthralgias of her knees, ankles, and hand with joint pain in the right thumb. See generally Pet. Ex. 2.

Petitioner presented for a routine physical on December 28, 2017. Pet. Ex. 2 at 2-11. She reported generalized arthralgias of the knees, ankles, and hands, and some joint swelling, but no morning stiffness. Id.

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

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

Williford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Williford v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related