VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00845
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00845
Petitioner: Gloria Keyes
Filed: 2015-08-07
Decided: 2016-06-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-11-24
Condition: tendonitis and disorders of bursae and tendons in her left shoulder
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 80800

AI-assisted case summary:
Gloria Keyes filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on August 7, 2015, alleging that she suffered tendonitis and disorders of the bursae and tendons in her left shoulder as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 24, 2014. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the petition, medical records, and relevant literature. In a Rule 4(c) Report filed on April 8, 2016, the respondent conceded that Ms. Keyes's left shoulder injury was consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and was not due to factors unrelated to the vaccination. The respondent further stated that Ms. Keyes met all statutory and jurisdictional requirements, including having suffered the condition for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession, a ruling on entitlement was issued finding Ms. Keyes entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on May 10, 2016, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, indicating that Ms. Keyes should be awarded $80,800.00, which represented all elements of compensation available under the Vaccine Act. Ms. Keyes agreed with this proffered award. On June 7, 2016, the Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Ms. Keyes a lump sum payment of $80,800.00.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00845-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-04
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/27/2016) regarding 17 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0845V
Filed: January 27, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GLORIA KEYES, *
*
Petitioners, * Finding of Fact; Vaccination Site;
v. * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ann Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON FACTS1
On August 7, 2015, Gloria Keyes (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et
seq, (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza
vaccination she received on November 24, 2014, she suffered a left shoulder injury
diagnosed as tendonitis and disorders of bursae and tendons in the shoulder region.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”).
I. Procedural History
An initial status conference was held on September 18, 2015, with the staff
attorney managing this case. During the status conference it was noted that the
vaccination record indicates that the vaccination was administered to petitioner’s right
arm, rather than to her left arm, as alleged. Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged this
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 3
discrepancy, but believed the notation was a scrivener’s error. He agreed to obtain an
affidavit from petitioner addressing the issue.
Petitioner submitted her affidavit on November 11, 2015. Therein she stated that
she “distinctly remember[ed] the positioning of the nurse and [her]self when the vaccine
was performed: [She] was seated with the nurse standing to [her]left. [The nurse]
injected the vaccine into the top part of [her] left shoulder.” Pet. Ex. 5 at ¶ 3. She
recalled “immediately [feeling] jolting pain at the vaccination site[, which] got
progressively worse over the following weeks[,]” causing her “to seek treatment from
[her] family doctor.” Id. at ¶ 4.
On December 3, 2015, respondent filed a status report requesting that the
undersigned “issue a written fact ruling determining the site of vaccination.” Res. Status
Rep. at 2. Respondent stated that her “position on the case depends on the resolution
of this factual issue.” Id.
II. Facts
Petitioner received an influenza vaccination on November 24, 2014, at a Walmart
Pharmacy located in New Jersey. Pet. Ex. 1; Petition at ¶ 3. The vaccination record
indicates it was administered in petitioner’s right arm. Pet. Ex. 1.
On December 17, 2014, petitioner presented to the office of her primary care
physician complaining of “[l]eft arm pain since getting flu shot at Walmart on 11/24.”
Pet. Ex. 2 at 44. She stated that the “pain [was] high in shoulder area where shot was
given.” Id. The pain was “localized to shoulder and upper arm, [with] no radiating pain
down to hand, [and no] numbness or tingling. Id. Physical examination revealed “left
arm with slight decreased range of motion secondary to stated pain when attempting to
lift arm up to shoulder level, able to twist arm, strength is good throughout arm and
hands, no palpated pain, slightly edematous upper shoulder area without erythema or
rash. No bursa pain noted.” Id. at 45. She was diagnosed with left extremity pain and
prescribed an oral steroid. Id.
On January 8, 2015, petitioner returned to her primary care physician for a
routine checkup and complained of continued pain in her left shoulder. Pet. Ex. 2 at 47.
She reported that her arm felt “much better” while on the steroids, but that the pain
returned shortly after she stopped taking the medication. Id. Physical examination
revealed "left arm with slight decreased range of motion . . . with some slight pain noted
at deltoid shot site. No anterior and posterior bursa pain.” Id. at 48. She was again
diagnosed with left extremity pain and offered a small dosing of steroids. Id. at 49.
Petitioner declined the prescription, opting instead to try stretching and icing. Id.
On March 3, 2015, petitioner followed up with her primary care physician
regarding her left shoulder pain and decreased arm strength. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55. She
also complained of “radiating pain now almost to elbow.” Id. Physical examination
revealed slightly decreased extension/pull strength and decreased range of motion with
2

Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3
certain movements. Id. at 57. There were no palpable deformities and no pain with
palpation, but petitioner reported a “slight discomfort.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed
with “Pain Joint Shoulder Region” and prescribed a two-week course of Naproxen. Id.
She also received a referral to see a neurologist. Id.
On March 12, 2015, petitioner presented to a neurologist for an evaluation of
“pain in left arm after flu shot [in] November.” Pet. Ex. 3 at 9. He conducted a thorough
physical examination, revealing “tenderness of the tendon of the left triceps with pain on
abduction." Id. at 5. He diagnosed petitioner with tendinitis of the left triceps or deltoid
and advised that she undergo a course of physical therapy. Id.
On April 14, 2015, petitioner presented to her primary care physician for a routine
checkup, where she again complained of persistent left shoulder pain. Pet. Ex. 2 at 61.
She also reported that her physical therapy was to begin in about one week. Id.
On May 7, 2015, petitioner underwent an initial evaluation for physical therapy
and received diagnoses of left shoulder joint pain and disorders of bursae and tendons
in shoulder region. Pet. Ex. 2 at 70. The therapist assessed petitioner’s potential for
rehabilitation as good and recommended an initial course of twelve visits. Id. at 73.
III. Discussion
The undersigned has reviewed the record and finds preponderant evidence to
support petitioner’s claim that the flu vaccine she received on November 24, 2014, was
administered to her left arm.
Although the immunization record itself clearly indicates that the vaccine was
injected in petitioner’s right arm, all of the other evidence of record strongly suggests
that it was given in her left arm, as she alleges. The undersigned observes that from
petitioner’s initial treatment onward, she consistently reported that her left shoulder
problem began after the November 24, 2014 flu vaccination. Indeed, no record other
than the vaccine record makes any reference to the vaccine having been administered
to the right arm (nor do the records note any complaint or injury pertaining to the right
arm). Additionally, the undersigned accepts petitioner’s affidavit as a credible account
of her vaccination, having found no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her assertions.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, the undersigned finds that petitioner in fact
received the November 24, 2014 influenza vaccination in her left shoulder.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00845-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/08/2016) regarding 23 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0845V
Filed: April 8, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GLORIA KEYES, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
v.
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On August 7, 2015, Gloria Keyes (“petitioner”) 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 as a result of receiving
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 24, 2014, she suffered tendonitis and
disorders of bursae and tendons in her left shoulder. Pet. at 1. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 8, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report in which she concedes
that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Rep. at 1. In her
report, respondent stated that she reviewed the petition, the medical records, and the
undersigned’s Ruling on Facts in this case, as well as the relevant medical literature
regarding petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury. Id. at 4. Based on that review,
respondent concluded that petitioner’s left shoulder injury is consistent with shoulder
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that the injury is not due to
factors unrelated to her November 24, 2014, flu vaccination. Id. Respondent further
stated that petitioner met all statutory and jurisdictional requirements, including having
suffered the condition for more than six months. Id. Thus, respondent agrees with
petitioner that compensation for her left shoulder injury is appropriate under the terms of
the Vaccine Act. Id.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00845-2
Date issued/filed: 2016-06-07
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/11/2016) regarding 26 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0845V
Filed: May 11, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GLORIA KEYES, *
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
v. * Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On August 7, 2015, Gloria Keyes (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et
seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 24, 2014, she suffered tendonitis and disorders of bursae
and tendons in her left shoulder. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 8, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). On May
10, 2016, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating
petitioner should be awarded $80,800.00. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, respondent
represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the record as a
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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 $80,800.00 in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Gloria Keyes. 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
GLORIA KEYES, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 15-845V
v. ) Chief Special Master Dorsey
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$80,800.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $80,800.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
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 pain and
suffering.

Case 1:15-vv-00845-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 4
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ ANN D. MARTIN
ANN D. MARTIN
Senior 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) 307-1815
DATED: May 10, 2016
2