HENDERSON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
1:22-vv-01528
| Fed. Cl. | Aug 12, 2025Background
- Petitioner, Ebony Henderson, filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act), alleging a right shoulder injury (SIRVA) from a 2019 flu vaccination.
- Petitioner represented herself, then had and subsequently lost counsel during the proceeding; no expert medical opinion was ultimately filed on her behalf.
- The government contested compensation, arguing the petitioner’s symptoms were attributable to a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and nerve injury from recent IV catheterization, not the flu vaccine.
- Medical records reflected right arm and shoulder pain following both the IV placement and the vaccination, but physicians consistently linked symptoms to the IV/DVT rather than to the vaccine.
- Petitioner failed to meet evidentiary requirements under the Vaccine Act, notably failing to provide a medical expert opinion linking her symptoms to the vaccination.
- The special master concluded that the injury was more likely a result of the DVT related to IV placement and dismissed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the petitioner suffer a Vaccine Table SIRVA injury? | Henderson claimed her shoulder pain began after the flu shot and fit the SIRVA criteria. | The Secretary argued her symptoms didn't meet the SIRVA criteria (symptoms not limited to shoulder, alternate cause present). | No; criteria for Table SIRVA not met. |
| Was another condition a more likely explanation? | Henderson alleged the vaccine was the cause, emphasizing pain began after vaccination. | The Secretary cited medical records linking symptoms to IV-induced DVT and nerve injury. | Yes; evidence favored DVT/IV explanation. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of causation-in-fact? | Henderson relied on self-report and highlighted medical records implicating the vaccine. | The Secretary noted lack of any supportive expert or treating physician opinion. | No; no credible medical evidence supported vaccine causation. |
| Could the petitioner prevail without medical expert support? | Henderson did not provide an expert opinion or supportive medical analysis. | The Secretary emphasized the Vaccine Act's requirement for objective evidence. | No; failure to present an expert opinion was fatal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (articulates burden of proof and causation standards under the Vaccine Act)
- Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explains but-for and substantial factor causation under the Vaccine Act)
- Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 451 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discusses evidence required to establish vaccine injury causation-in-fact)
- Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (sets forth the legal test for causation in fact in Vaccine Act cases)
- Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (clarifies standard of proof and need not for medical certainty in vaccine claims)
- Hines ex rel. Sevier v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 940 F.2d 1518 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (role of the special master in evaluating evidence)