VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007
Petitioner: Raithe Pace
Filed: 2013-12-19
Decided: 2014-07-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-09-24
Condition: left shoulder injury
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 95000

AI-assisted case summary:
Raithe Pace filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 19, 2013, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury caused in fact by an influenza vaccine administered on September 24, 2011. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on June 2, 2014, stating that the alleged injury was consistent with Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) and that the petitioner met the legal prerequisites for compensation. The respondent's concession was limited to the petitioner's SIRVA and its related sequelae. On June 3, 2014, Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for an injury caused in fact by a covered vaccine, based on the respondent's concession and a review of the record. A separate damages order was to follow. On June 25, 2014, the respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, stating that the petitioner should be awarded $95,000.00, an amount with which the petitioner agreed. On July 18, 2014, Special Master Dorsey issued a Decision Awarding Damages, granting Raithe Pace a lump sum payment of $95,000.00, payable to her. This amount accounted for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The parties also stipulated to attorneys' fees and costs. On July 17, 2014, they filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, agreeing to an award of $17,000.00. On August 8, 2014, Special Master Dorsey issued a decision approving this stipulation, ordering that a check for $17,000.00 be made jointly payable to Raithe Pace and her counsel, Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP. The public decision does not describe the specific onset, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Traci R. Patton of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Raithe Pace alleged a left shoulder injury caused in fact by an influenza vaccine administered on September 24, 2011. The respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) and that petitioner met the legal prerequisites for compensation. The Special Master's Ruling on Entitlement, issued June 3, 2014, found petitioner entitled to compensation based on this concession. A subsequent Decision Awarding Damages, issued July 18, 2014, granted a lump sum of $95,000.00 to petitioner. Attorneys' fees and costs were stipulated at $17,000.00 and approved August 8, 2014. The public decision does not detail the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or clinical findings beyond the concession of SIRVA. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller (Muller Brazil, LLP), and respondent by Traci R. Patton (U.S. Department of Justice). Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey presided over the proceedings.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-05-27
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/02/2014) regarding 13 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 14 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
(Filed: May 2, 2014)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAITHE PACE, * UNPUBLISHED
* No. 13-1007V
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Fact Ruling; Sufficiency of the Evidence;
* Location of Vaccination; Influenza (“Flu”)
Respondent. * Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
RULING REGARDING FINDING OF FACT1
On December 19, 2013, Raithe Pace (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 (“the Program”) in which she alleges
that a trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on September 24, 2011 caused her to
suffer from shoulder injuries. See Petition (“Pet.”) at 1. Petitioner subsequently filed 8 medical
record exhibits on January 3, 2014.
An initial status conference was held on March 6, 2014, during which respondent noted
that the medical records are ambiguous as to whether petitioner received the influenza
1 Because this published ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
the undersigned intends to post this decision on the website of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). In
accordance with the Vaccine Rules, each party has 14 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). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a
proposed redacted ruling. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,
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.

Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 14 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 3
vaccination in her left or right arm. On March 31, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for finding of
fact, based on the record as it now stands, regarding the location of her vaccination. In the
motion, petitioner cites to the places in the record at which the location of petitioner’s flu shot is
documented. Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion on April 16, 2014, deferring to
the undersigned’s factual finding regarding the location of vaccination. This matter is now ripe
for adjudication.
Applicable Legal Standard
Under the Vaccine Act, petitioner must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that she “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” § 300aa-11(c)(1)(A). The
preponderance of the evidence standard means a fact is more likely than not. Moberly v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Although contemporaneous documentation of vaccination from a health care provider is
the best evidence, its production is not an absolute requirement. See Centmehaiey v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 32 Fed. Cl. 612, 621 (1995) (“The lack of contemporaneous,
documentary proof of a vaccination . . . does not necessarily bar recovery.”). Thus, special
masters have found in favor of vaccine administration where contemporaneous documentation of
vaccination is unavailable as long as other forms of evidence have provided preponderant
evidence of vaccination administration. For example, corroborative, though retrospective,
medical notations have been found to provide preponderant evidence of vaccine administration.
See Wonish v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-667V, 1991 WL 83959, at *4 (Cl. Ct.
Spec. Mstr. May 6, 1991) (finding parental testimony “corroborated strongly by medical records
[referring] back to the [vaccination]” to be sufficient to establish vaccine administration); Groht
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 00-287V, 2006 WL 3342222, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 30, 2006) (finding a treating physician’s note “4/30/97-Hep B. inj. # 1 (not given
here) ([patient] wanted this to be charted)” to be sufficient proof of vaccination); Lamberti v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May, 31, 2007) (finding multiple medical record references to vaccine receipt to constitute
preponderant evidence of administration).
Determination
The undersigned finds that petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the influenza vaccination was administered in her left arm. Petitioner has filed a
contemporaneous “Influenza Vaccine Information & Consent” form which documents that
petitioner was administered a flu vaccine on September 24, 2011. Pet’r’s Ex. A at 49. This form
is unclear as to whether petitioner was administered the vaccine on her left or her right side. The
administrator of the vaccine annotated the form as follows:

Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 14 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 3
Id.
Thereafter, there is ample documentation of the fact that petitioner sought and received
medical treatment, soon after the vaccination, for the injury she had sustained to her left arm. On
October 7, 2011, petitioner presented to her primary care physician, Dr. Robert Detweiler, with a
two-week history of constant “[left] arm pain.” Pet’r’s Ex. A at 26. On October 8, 2011,
petitioner was seen at Lansdale Hospital with “pain left shoulder post flu shot,” and “[i]internal/
external frontal views of the left shoulder [were] obtained” via X-ray. Pet’r’s Ex. A at 48; Ex. C
at 2. On October 27, 2011, November 4, 2011, November 8, 2011, November 10, 2011,
November 22, 2011, December 14, 2011, and December 21, 2011, petitioner presented to
orthopedic specialists at the Upper Extremity Institute for diagnosis and treatment of the injury to
her left shoulder. Pet’r’s Ex. B at 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 18, 28.
Moreover, both petitioner and petitioner’s husband, who was present at the time of
vaccination, have authored affidavits confirming that the flu shot was administered in
petitioner’s left arm. Pet’r’s Ex. H at 1, Pet’r’s Ex. I at 1.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the September 24, 2011 flu vaccination was
administered to petitioner in her left arm. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to file a status
report by Monday, June 2, 2014, regarding whether she believes that any medical records
remain outstanding. Respondent shall also state whether she wishes to engage in settlement
negotiations and, if she does not, she shall propose a date on which to file a Rule 4 Report.
Any questions regarding this Ruling may be directed to my law clerk, Meg Beardsley, at
(202) 357-6385 or at Meg_Beardsley@ao.uscourt.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-06-24
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/03/2014) regarding 16 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: June 3, 2014
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** UNPUBLISHED
RAITHE PACE, *
* No. 13-1007V
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling on Entitlement; Influenza (“Flu”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
* Administration (“SIRVA”); Conceded.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 19, 2013, Raithe Pace (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”)2 alleging that she
suffered from a left shoulder injury that had been caused-in-fact by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered to her on September 24, 2011. See Petition (“Pet.”) at 1.
On May 2, 2014, in response to petitioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative
Record Regarding the Location of Vaccination, the undersigned issued a Ruling Regarding
Finding of Fact (“Fact Ruling”). The undersigned concluded that petitioner had proven, by a
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post this decision on the website of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). In
accordance with the Vaccine Rules, each party has 14 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). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a
proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material
fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 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.
1

Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 2
preponderance of the evidence, that the September 24, 2011 flu vaccination had been
administered to petitioner in her left arm. Fact Ruling at 3.
On June 2, 2014, respondent filed a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) in which she
states that she believes petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Respondent’s Report at 4. Based on the medical records
that have been filed, respondent believes that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. Respondent clarifies that her concession regarding
damages is limited to petitioner’s SIRVA “and its related sequelae.” Id.
In view of respondent’s position and of the undersigned’s review of the entire record, see
§ 300aa-13(a)(1), the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation for an injury
that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV); Althen v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A separate damages order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007-2
Date issued/filed: 2014-07-18
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/27/2014) regarding 20 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-1007V
(Filed: June 27, 2014)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAITHE PACE, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Dorsey
*
v. *
* Decision on Proffer; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Injury Related to Vaccine
* Administration (“SIRVA”).
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Traci Patton, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 19, 2013, Raithe Pace (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that she suffered from a left
shoulder injury that had been caused-in-fact by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her
on September 24, 2011. Petition at 1. On June 3, 2014, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued
based on respondent’s concession.
On June 25, 2014, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation. Respondent
proffers that, based upon her review of the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,
the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116
Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by
Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 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.

Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 4
$95,000.00. Respondent states that petitioner agrees with the amount set forth in the Proffer.
Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an
award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the
undersigned awards petitioner:
A lump sum payment of $95,000.00, in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Raithe Pace. This amount accounts for all elements of
compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be
entitled.
Proffer ¶ II.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2

CCaassee 11::1133--vvvv--0011000077--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1295 FFiilleedd 0067//2158//1144 PPaaggee 13 ooff 24
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
RAITHE PACE, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) No. 13-1007V
) Special Master Dorsey
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) ECF
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items
Respondent proffers that, based on the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded
$95,000.00. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1); 15(a)(3)(A); and 15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below, and request that the special master’s decision
and the Court’s judgment award the following:1
A. A lump sum payment of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Raithe
Pace. This amount accounts for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be entitled.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical
expenses and future pain and suffering.

CCaassee 11::1133--vvvv--0011000077--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1295 FFiilleedd 0067//2158//1144 PPaaggee 24 ooff 24
Respectfully submitted,
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALTHEA W. DAVIS
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Traci R. Patton
TRACI R. PATTON
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 146
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 353-1589
DATE: June 25, 2014
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-01007-3
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/18/2014) regarding 26 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-1007V
(Filed: July 18, 2014)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RAITHE PACE, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Dorsey
*
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Reasonable Amount Requested to
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Which Respondent Does Not Object.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Traci Patton, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On December 19, 2013, Raithe Pace (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that she suffered a left
shoulder injury that had been caused-in-fact by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her
on September 24, 2011. Petition at 1. On June 3, 2014, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued
based on respondent’s concession, and on June 27, 2014, a Decision awarding Damages was
issued based on respondent’s proffer.
On July 17, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,
the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116
Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by
Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 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.

Case 1:13-vv-01007-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 2
Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties stipulate to an award to petitioners of attorneys’
fees and costs in the amount of $17,000.00. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s
counsel represents that petitioner did not incur any personal litigation costs in pursuit of her
Vaccine Act petition.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. §
300 aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of the parties’ stipulation, the undersigned GRANTS
the request for approval and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Accordingly, an award should be made as follows:
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and to Mr. Maximillian Muller,
of the law firm of Muller Brazil, LLP, in the amount of $17,000.00.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’
stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint
filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2