VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01030
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01030
Petitioner: Heather Cook
Filed: 2014-10-23
Decided: 2015-06-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-09-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA")
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Heather Cook filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 23, 2014, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 30, 2013. She was 44 years old at the time of vaccination. Ms. Cook sought compensation for left shoulder pain, stiffness, weakness, and numbness, which she reported began approximately seven days after the vaccination. Medical evaluations noted inflammation and limited range of motion in her left shoulder. A neurologist considered a reaction to the flu shot or brachial plexitis as potential diagnoses. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Ms. Cook's injury was consistent with SIRVA and satisfied the "Althen requirements" for causation, agreeing that the alleged injury was caused in fact by the vaccination. The respondent also agreed that Ms. Cook suffered residual effects of her injury for at least six months and had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. The parties stipulated to an award of $70,000.00 for all damages, to be paid as a lump sum check to Ms. Cook. Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell issued a decision on May 28, 2015, awarding Ms. Cook the stipulated $70,000.00. Subsequently, on July 16, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorney fees and costs. They agreed upon an award of $13,394.34. Chief Special Master Vowell issued a decision on August 5, 2015, awarding the stipulated attorney fees and costs of $13,394.34 as a lump sum check jointly payable to Ms. Cook and her counsel, Mark L. Krueger. Petitioner was represented by Mark L. Krueger of Krueger & Hernandez, S.C., and respondent was represented by Jennifer Leigh Reynaud of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Heather Cook, age 44, received an influenza vaccine on September 30, 2013, and subsequently developed left shoulder pain, stiffness, weakness, and numbness approximately seven days later, consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded that the injury met the "Althen requirements" for causation and was caused in fact by the vaccination, noting no other cause was identified. Petitioner experienced residual effects for more than six months. The parties stipulated to an award of $70,000.00 for all damages, paid as a lump sum to petitioner. Attorney fees and costs of $13,394.34 were also stipulated and awarded jointly to petitioner and her counsel. Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell issued the damages decision on May 28, 2015, and the attorney fees decision on August 5, 2015. Petitioner was represented by Mark L. Krueger, and respondent by Jennifer Leigh Reynaud.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01030-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-06-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/28/2015) regarding 20 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01030-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1030V
Filed: May 28, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER COOK, *
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Influenza; Shoulder Injury Related to
* Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark L. Krueger, Krueger & Hernandez, S.C., Baraboo, WI, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On October 23, 2014, Heather Cook filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered an injury to the
shoulder and/or brachial plexus as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on
September 30, 2013. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 28, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she both
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case and presents a Proffer
on Award of Compensation in the same document. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1,
4. Specifically, respondent states that “DICP believes that petitioner’s alleged injury is
consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). As such,
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to
redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material from public access.
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 (2006).

Case 1:14-vv-01030-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 7
DICP agrees that petitioner’s claim satisfies the Althen requirements and that her
alleged injury was caused in fact by a vaccination. See Althen v. HHS, 418 F.3d 1274,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner suffered
residual effects of her injury for at least six months and that she has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation. Id.
Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation, filed as part of her Rule 4
report, indicates that petitioner should be awarded $70,000.00 in the form of a check
payable to petitioner. Id. at 4. Petitioner agrees. Id.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation and pursuant to the terms stated in the
attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $70,000.00 in the form
of a check payable to petitioner, Heather Cook. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011003300--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1291 FFiilleedd 0056//2188//1155 PPaaggee 13 ooff 57
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
HEATHER COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 14-1030V
Chief Special Master Vowell
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S RULE 4(c) REPORT AND PROFFER ON DAMAGES
On October 23, 2014, Heather Cook (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. The Petition alleges that petitioner received an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her left shoulder on September 30, 2013, and subsequently suffered a
shoulder injury/brachial plexus as a result of the flu vaccination. Petition at 2.
Medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs (“DICP”) at the
Department of Health and Human Services have reviewed the Petition and medical records filed
in the case, to determine whether petitioner qualifies for compensation under the Vaccine Act.
DICP has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case. In accordance with Vaccine
Rule 4(c), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) submits the following as
her responsive report.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Petitioner was 44 years old when she received a flu vaccine on September 30, 2013, at
Walgreens. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 2 at 1. On October 9, 2013, petitioner was treated at
Dean Clinic for left shoulder pain. Pet. Ex. 3 at 41. It was noted that petitioner’s pain, which
1

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011003300--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1291 FFiilleedd 0056//2188//1155 PPaaggee 24 ooff 57
petitioner reported as having started seven days earlier, was “reminiscent of interarticular or
tendon inflammation” and that a flu vaccine “injected in upper posterior shoulder could have
penetrated capsule or injected into tendon.” Id. Ibuprofen was prescribed. Id. On October 16,
2013, petitioner returned to the clinic, stating that her pain was “getting progressively worse with
increasing pain and stiffness” and was interfering with normal activity. Id. Petitioner’s range of
motion was extremely limited. Id. at 44.
On October 23, 2013, petitioner presented to orthopedic specialist, Dean T. Fochios,
M.D., with left shoulder pain shooting down her arm, weakness, and minor numbness and
tingling in her fingers. Pet. Ex. 4 at 1. Petitioner had full range of motion and pain with extreme
motion. Id. at 3. Dr. Fochios noted that petitioner suffered a “contusion of the left shoulder
secondary to a flu injection with secondary stiffness and discomfort.” Id. at 4. Petitioner was
referred to physical therapy. Id. Petitioner returned to Dr. Fochios on November 13, 2013, as
she still had “residual discomfort and her condition ha[d] not fully resolved.” Id. at 18.
Petitioner had minor tightness and tenderness that had spread to her neck and upper extremity.
Id. at 19.
On December 10, 2013, Dr. Fochios noted that petitioner continued to complain “of
achiness in and around the left shoulder, as well as weakness” despite consistently attending
physical therapy and performing her normal home exercise program. Pet. Ex. 4 at 21. Petitioner
had full range of motion but experienced achiness at the extremes of motion. Id. at 22. Dr.
Fochios noted that petitioner still had a “significant generalized weakness in external rotation of
the shoulder. . . . in the area where she received her injection.” Id. at 22−23. Dr. Fochios
referred petitioner to a neurologist. Id. at 23.
Adam R. Jaffe, D.O., a neurologist, saw petitioner on December 23, 2013. Pet. Ex. 4 at
12. Petitioner’s pain had reduced in intensity and she was mostly concerned with her hand
2

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011003300--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1291 FFiilleedd 0056//2188//1155 PPaaggee 35 ooff 57
clumsiness. Id. Dr. Jaffe noted that petitioner suffered tension-type headaches after receiving
the flu shot. Id. Dr. Jaffe’s differential diagnosis included a “reaction to the flu shot, as well as
possible reaction resulting in a brachial plexitis.” Id. Dr. Jaffe ordered an electromyogram
(“EMG”) and referred petitioner to occupational therapy. Id. The EMG revealed no
abnormalities. Pet. Ex. 3 at 106. In a follow-up with Dr. Jaffe on March 24, 2014, petitioner
complained of difficulty with her hand and fine finger movements. Pet. Ex. 9 at 9. Dr. Jaffe
recommended intravenous steroids as possible therapy but petitioner declined. Id. A chest MRI
on April 1, 2014, showed a normal brachial plexus but an “incidental degenerative change in the
left shoulder.” Id. at 10.
On June 23, 2014, petitioner saw her primary care physician, Karen C. Swallen, M.D., for
continued shoulder pain. Dr. Swallen noted that petitioner was “significantly weak in her rotator
cuff.” Pet. Ex. 6 at 2. In a follow-up on July 22, 2014, petitioner reported that her hand
weakness, difficulty with performing daily tasks, and clumsiness persisted. Id. at 4.
ANALYSIS
DICP believes that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). As such, DICP agrees that petitioner’s claim satisfies the
Althen requirements and that her alleged injury was caused-in-fact by a vaccination. See Althen
v. HHS, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). No other cause for petitioner’s condition has
been identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). Based on the medical records outlined
above, petitioner has met the statutory requirements by suffering the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months. See id. at § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on the
record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
Act.
3

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011003300--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1291 FFiilleedd 0056//2188//1155 PPaaggee 46 ooff 57
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$70,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.1
Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GLENN A. MACLEOD
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
4

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011003300--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 1291 FFiilleedd 0056//2188//1155 PPaaggee 57 ooff 57
s/ Jennifer L. Reynaud
JENNIFER L. REYNAUD
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-1586
Date: May 28, 2015
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01030-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/16/2015) regarding 25 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01030-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1030V
Filed: July 16, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER COOK, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark L Krueger, Krueger & Hernandez, S.C., Baraboo, WI, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On October 23, 2014, Heather Cook filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleged a shoulder injury caused by her
September 30, 2013 influenza vaccination. On May 28, 2015, I issued a decision
awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer.
On July 16, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an award of
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify
and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will
redact such material from public access.
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).

Case 1:14-vv-01030-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2
$13,394.34. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that
petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42
U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). I find the proposed amount to be reasonable.
Accordingly, I award the total of $13,394.343 as a lump sum in the form of a
check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Mark L. Krueger.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including
costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924
F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).