VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00438
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00438
Petitioner: Kathleen Campbell
Filed: 2017-03-27
Decided: 2021-01-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-07
Condition: shoulder injury
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kathleen Campbell filed a petition on March 27, 2017, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 7, 2015, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). She claimed the injury developed within 24 hours of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argued that Ms. Campbell's pre-existing shoulder injuries and the fact that her significant shoulder pain began approximately three weeks after vaccination, following an incident where she caught her partner from falling, prevented her from establishing entitlement. The case involved extensive procedural history, including settlement negotiations, the filing of affidavits, and a fact hearing held via video conferencing on April 16, 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic. A June 10, 2020 Ruling found that Ms. Campbell began to experience severe shoulder pain on October 26, 2015, after attempting to prevent her partner from falling. Following this ruling, Ms. Campbell stated she did not intend to obtain an expert report. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the vaccine "actually caused" the injury. The Special Master found that the evidence did not support Ms. Campbell's allegation of an on-Table SIRVA injury due to the delayed onset of significant pain, which occurred approximately three weeks after vaccination and was linked to a fall. As Ms. Campbell declined to pursue a causation-in-fact claim with supporting medical opinion after the finding that her pain onset was delayed, her case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The decision was issued by Special Master Christian J. Moran on January 29, 2021. Petitioner counsel was Joseph A. Vuckovich of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA. Respondent counsel was Lisa A. Watts and Althea Walker Davis of the United States Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kathleen Campbell alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an October 7, 2015, influenza vaccination, claiming onset within 24 hours. The respondent argued against entitlement, citing pre-existing shoulder issues and a fall approximately three weeks post-vaccination as the cause of significant pain. The Special Master, Christian J. Moran, found that the evidence did not support an on-Table SIRVA injury due to the delayed onset of significant pain, which began around October 26, 2015, after a fall. As Ms. Campbell declined to obtain an expert medical opinion to support an off-Table causation-in-fact claim after this finding, her case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The decision was issued on January 29, 2021. Petitioner counsel was Joseph A. Vuckovich; respondent counsel was Lisa A. Watts and Althea Walker Davis. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00438-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-09
Pages: 11
Docket text: /2020 to attach correct PDF) (ypb).PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 6/10/2020) regarding 73 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (abs) Service on parties made. (Main Document 75 replaced on 8/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATHLEEN CAMPBELL, *
* No. 17-438V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. * Filed: June 10, 2020
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, * Fact ruling; shoulder injury related to
* vaccine administration (“SIRVA”);
Respondent. * onset of symptoms.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joseph A. Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
petitioner;
Lisa A. Watts, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING FACTS*
The petition, filed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–10 through 34 (2012), alleges that
Kathleen Campbell suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration as a result of the influenza vaccine she received on October 7, 2015.
Pet., filed Mar. 27, 2017, at 1-2. A fact hearing was held on April 16, 2020, to
resolve the onset of Ms. Campbell’s shoulder pain.
Procedural History
Ms. Campbell alleged a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) where she developed pain in her left shoulder within 24
*The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,
2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Anyone will be able to access this
ruling via the internet (https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). Pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical
information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—12(d)(4). Any redactions
ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 11
hours of her October 7, 2015 influenza vaccination. Pet., filed Mar. 27, 2017, at 1.
Ms. Campbell filed medical records and eventually a statement of completion on
May 10, 2017.
Once the Secretary completed his review of the record, the parties engaged
in initial settlement negotiations. Resp’t’s Status Rep., filed Oct. 30, 2017. Before
proceeding further with settlement negotiations, Ms. Campbell requested the
opportunity to improve the factual foundations of her case by submitting affidavits
from fact witnesses. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Dec. 14, 2017. Ms. Campbell
submitted the affidavits and then proceeded with settlement. Pet’r’s Status Rep.
filed May 7, 2018. At a June 11, 2018 status conference, the Secretary noted that
settlement negotiations had continued, but he intended to proceed with the
litigation track and proposed a due date for his Rule 4 report.
In the Rule 4 report, the Secretary argued that Ms. Campbell’s pre-existing
shoulder injuries prevented her from claiming a Table SIRVA and her post-
vaccination left shoulder pain was the result of catching her partner, Joseph
Haeckel, when he fell. Resp’t’s Rep., filed July 6, 2018, at 6 n.4. After a status
conference to discuss the Rule 4 report, Ms. Campbell was ordered to provide an
affidavit to discuss her partner’s fall and to consider providing an affidavit from
her partner. Order, issued July 26, 2018. Ms. Campbell filed an affidavit
regarding the fall but did not file an affidavit from Mr. Haeckel. Exhibit 17. The
parties again entered into settlement negotiations.
At a November 16, 2018 status conference, the undersigned noted that
parties had spent a long time in settlement negotiations considering the extent of
damages and the case would be placed on a queue for a fact hearing after Ms.
Campbell confirmed that all documentary evidence had been filed. Order, issued
Nov. 19, 2018. Ms. Campbell confirmed that all documentary evidence had been
filed but again requested additional time to resolve the case informally. Pet’r’s
Status Rep., filed Dec. 19, 2018.
After a few more months of negotiations, Ms. Campbell advised that the
parties had not been able to resolve the case informally and requested that a fact
hearing be scheduled. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Apr. 17, 2019. A fact hearing was
then scheduled and onset statements were ordered. Order, issued Dec. 19, 2019;
order issued Jan. 9, 2020. Ms. Campbell filed her onset statement and additional
evidence on February 21, 2020. The Secretary then filed his onset statement on
March 12, 2020.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 11
The pre-hearing status conference clarified that the primary issues were
whether Ms. Campbell’s pre-vaccination shoulder pain resolved and when Ms.
Campbell’s shoulder pain began post-vaccination. Order, issued Apr. 6, 2020. A
fact hearing was held on April 16, 2020, in which Ms. Campbell and two other
witnesses testified.1
The onset issue is now ready for adjudication.
Standard for Finding Facts
Petitioners are required to establish their cases by a preponderance of the
evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(1)(a). The preponderance of the evidence
standard requires a “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who has
the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted).
The process for finding facts in the Vaccine Program begins with analyzing
the medical records, which are required to be filed with the petition. 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa–11(c)(2). Medical records that are created contemporaneously with the
events they describe are presumed to be accurate. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Not only are medical records presumed to be accurate, they are also
presumed to be complete, in the sense that the medical records present all the
patient’s medical issues. Completeness is presumed due to a series of propositions.
First, when people are ill, they see a medical professional. Second, when ill people
see a doctor, they report all of their problems to the doctor. Third, having heard
about the symptoms, the doctor records what he or she was told.
Appellate authorities have accepted the reasoning supporting a presumption
that medical records created contemporaneously with the events being described
are accurate and complete. A notable example is Cucuras in which petitioners
asserted that their daughter, Nicole, began having seizures within one day of
receiving a vaccination, although medical records created around that time
1 The hearing was originally scheduled to be held in San Antonio, Texas, but, due to
restrictions from the coronavirus pandemic, the hearing was held via video conferencing.
3

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 11
suggested that the seizures began at least one week after the vaccination. Cucuras,
993 F.3d at 1527. A judge reviewing the special master’s decision stated that “[i]n
light of [the parents’] concern for Nicole’s treatment . . . it strains reason to
conclude that petitioners would fail to accurately report the onset of their
daughter’s symptoms. It is equally unlikely that pediatric neurologists, who are
trained in taking medical histories concerning the onset of neurologically
significant symptoms, would consistently but erroneously report the onset of
seizures a week after they in fact occurred.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 537, 543 (1992), aff’d, 993 F.2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Judges of the Court of Federal Claims have followed Cucuras in affirming
findings by special masters that the lack of contemporaneously created medical
records can contradict a testimonial assertion that symptoms appeared on a certain
date. See, e.g., Doe/70 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 95 Fed. Cl. 598, 608
(Fed. Cl. 2010) (stating “[g]iven the inconsistencies between petitioner’s testimony
and his contemporaneous medical records, the special master’s decision to rely on
petitioner’s medical records was rational and consistent with applicable law”),
aff’d sub nom. Rickett v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 468 Fed. Appx. 952
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential opinion); Doe/17 v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 84 Fed. Cl. 691, 711 (2008); Ryman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
65 Fed. Cl. 35, 41-42 (2005); Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 36 Fed.
Cl. 461, 465 (1996) (stating “The special master apparently reasoned that, if Frank
suffered such [developmental] losses immediately following the vaccination, it was
more likely than not that this traumatic event, or his parents’ mention of it, would
have been noted by at least one of the medical record professionals who evaluated
Frank during his life to date. Finding Frank’s medical history silent on his loss of
developmental milestones, the special master questioned petitioner’s memory of
the events, not her sincerity.”), aff’d, 117 F.3d 545, 547-48 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The presumption that contemporaneously created medical records are
accurate and complete is rebuttable, however. For cases alleging a condition found
in the Vaccine Injury Table, special masters may find when a first symptom
appeared, despite the lack of a notation in a contemporaneous medical record. 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-13(b)(2). By extension, special masters may engage in similar
fact-finding for cases alleging an off-Table injury. In such cases, special masters
are expected to consider whether medical records are accurate and complete. To
overcome the presumption that written records are accurate, testimony is required
to be “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 90-2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
30, 1998).
4

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 11
In determining the accuracy and completeness of medical records, special
masters will consider various explanations for inconsistencies between
contemporaneously created medical records and later given testimony. The Court
of Federal Claims has identified four such explanations for explaining
inconsistencies: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional
everything that happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical
professional’s failure to document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s
faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s
purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y Health &
Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
When weighing divergent pieces of evidence, special masters usually find
contemporaneously written medical records to be more significant than oral
testimony. Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528. Testimony offered after the events in
question is less reliable than contemporaneous reports when the motivation for
accurate explication of symptoms is more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993). However, compelling oral
testimony may be more persuasive than written records. Campbell, 69 Fed. Cl. at
779 (“[L]ike any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should
not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its
application are weak or lacking.”); Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (this rule “should not be applied inflexibly, because
medical records may be incomplete or inaccurate”); Murphy v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991) (“[T]he absence of a reference to a
condition or circumstance is much less significant than a reference which negates
the existence of the condition or circumstance.”) (citation omitted), aff’d, 968 F.2d
1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Summary of Parties’ Positions
The primary factual issue to resolve is when Ms. Campbell’s left shoulder
pain began following her October 7, 2015 flu vaccination. In her onset statement,
Ms. Campbell asserts that her left shoulder pain began within 48 hours of the
vaccination. Pet’r’s Onset Stat., filed Feb. 21, 2020, ¶ 17. The Secretary argues
that Ms. Campbell’s left shoulder pain began toward the end of October 2015, after
her partner’s falling incident. Resp’t’s Onset Stat., filed Mar. 12, 2020, ¶ L. While
Ms. Campbell had prior left shoulder pain and injuries, the Secretary appears not to
be arguing that Ms. Campbell’s post-vaccination shoulder pain existed
5

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 11
continuously from before the vaccination. Resp’t’s Onset Stat. ¶ A-E. Because
there is no dispute regarding pre-vaccination shoulder pain, the factual history and
analysis will focus on the onset of post-vaccination left shoulder pain.
Summary of Evidence2
Pre-Vaccination
Kathleen Campbell was born on June 5, 1942. Exhibit 13. Ms. Campbell
moved to Texas around 2011 and was involved in physical activities, including
golf, and public life, including the local chamber of commerce. Tr. 69, 71, 13.
Following a multi-week road trip ending in July 2014, Ms. Campbell sought
treatment for a severe pain in her left shoulder, rating it a 7/10 (10 being the most
painful). Exhibit 8 at 52-53. Ms. Campbell reported an 8/10 left shoulder pain to
Geoffrey Millican, a sports medicine doctor. Exhibit 3 at 4-6. Dr. Millican
diagnosed Ms. Campbell with a probable left rotator cuff tear. Id. at 6.
After having some physical therapy, Ms. Campbell attempted to play golf
again in October 2014 but experienced some pain. Exhibit 9 at 19. She reported
that her shoulder was almost normal and would continue her recovery with home
exercises. Id. at 22. Through September 2015, Ms. Campbell made various trips
to see family and friends but did not have any significant left shoulder issues. She
also played golf regularly. Exhibit 16.
On October 7, 2015, Ms. Campbell received a flu vaccination at the
pharmacy of a local supermarket. Exhibit 12.
Post-Vaccination
Prior to the fall of Ms. Campbell’s partner
For the night after the vaccination, Ms. Campbell rated her left shoulder pain
at 2/10. Tr. 31. On the day following the vaccination, Ms. Campbell travelled
alone from Texas to meet her daughter, Janet Haddon, and granddaughter,
Kathleen Ferry, in Albany, New York. Exhibit 23 (travel documents). Ms.
Campbell stated that she required help on her flights to get her bag into the
2 Although not all evidence is cited here, the undersigned has reviewed and considered
the entire record.
6

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 11
overhead rack. Tr. 36. When they met in baggage claim, Ms. Haddon noted that
Ms. Campbell was not as energetic as usual, and Ms. Ferry noted that Ms.
Campbell complained about shoulder pain, which was not usual. Tr. 143, 186-87.
From Albany, the group traveled to North Bennington, Vermont, to visit Ms.
Campbell’s brother. Tr. 36. Over the next few days traveling around the area, Ms.
Ferry assisted Ms. Campbell with her bags. Tr. 85, 143-44. Ms. Campbell used
over-the-counter treatments for her shoulder, did not seek medical treatment, and
described her pain as 3/10 during the trip. Tr. 37, 55, 87, 145, 166. Upon Ms.
Campbell’s return to Texas on October 14, 2015, she did not seek medical
treatment. Tr. 56, 88.
On October 20, 2015, Ms. Campbell played 18 holes of golf. Exhibit 16
(golf records) at 1. She stated that her shoulder was still sore and had to
compensate when swinging. Tr. 39. Ms. Campbell earned a score of 104 on this
round of golf, which she agreed was about her normal score. Tr. 88; exhibit 16.
The fall of Mr. Haeckel, Ms. Campbell’s partner
On October 26, 2015, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Haeckel were traveling to Mr.
Haeckel’s appointment in San Antonio when they stopped at a McDonald’s to use
the restroom. Tr. 39-40, 93; exhibit 17. Mr. Haeckel was feeling woozy so Ms.
Campbell helped him inside the building keeping her right hand around his waist.
Id. 40. While still holding Mr. Haeckel with her right arm, Ms. Campbell opened
the bathroom door with her left arm. Id. At this point, Mr. Haeckel began to faint
putting all his weight on Ms. Campbell. Id. To slow Mr. Haeckel’s fall, Ms.
Campbell pushed Mr. Haeckel into the wall with the right side of her body. Id.
Ms. Campbell used her left hand on the door to help her push Mr. Haeckel toward
the wall. Id. 95-96. Mr. Haeckel was then taken to the hospital, but Ms. Campbell
did not receive any medical attention at that time. Id. 94. Ms. Campbell recounted
at the time she thought that “breaking [Mr. Haeckel’s] fall might have exacerbated
the pain in my shoulder.” Exhibit 17 ¶ 6. 3
3 It is notable that Ms. Campbell did not produce the hospital record from Mr. Haeckel’s
trip to the emergency room. Ms. Campbell also did not produce an affidavit from Mr. Haeckel.
It is conceivable that Mr. Haeckel could have added something to the account of the McDonald’s
incident or could have corroborated Ms. Campbell’s assertion of when her shoulder pain began.
7

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 11
After the fall of Mr. Haeckel
From October 28, 2015, to November 11, 2015, Ms. Campbell went to a
chiropractor five times for treatment. Exhibit 8 at 83-93. Ms. Campbell did not
complain of left shoulder pain during these treatments or receive any treatments for
left shoulder pain. Id. She only complained of pain and discomfort in her neck,
back, and right hip. Id. Ms. Campbell does not know why she would have
refrained from mentioning her left shoulder pain to the chiropractor. Tr. 58.
At a December 8, 2015 appointment with Dr. Millican, Ms. Campbell
reported her left shoulder pain to a medical professional for the first time. Exhibit
3 at 25-26. As mentioned previously, Ms. Campbell had treated with Dr. Millican
in 2014. Ms. Campbell stated that he is a good doctor who listens well. Tr. 82.
Dr. Millican recorded that Ms. Campbell’s new shoulder pain began after she
caught her partner when he fainted six weeks ago (approximately October 27,
2015). Exhibit 3 at 25-26. Ms. Campbell rated her pain over those six weeks as
recurrently hitting 9/10, and received an injection for the pain. Id. In her
testimony, Ms. Campbell stated that Dr. Millican did not describe Mr. Haeckel’s
fall accurately. Tr. 59, 82.
On the next day, Ms. Campbell saw her primary care provider, Dr. Edward
Sargent, for a wellness visit. Exhibit 4 at 8. As part of his overview, Dr. Sargent
noted an incident when Ms. Campbell had to catch her partner when he fell
resulting in shoulder and neck discomfort. Id. Ms. Campbell agreed that Dr.
Sargent is a good doctor who listens well but did not believe the incident of her
partner’s fall was accurately described. Tr. 80; exhibit 17.
In mid-December 2015, Ms. Campbell travelled to Idaho to attend Ms.
Ferry’s graduation from Boise State University. Tr. 105-06. Leading up to the
graduation, Ms. Campbell stated that she was using a sling for her left shoulder as
well as other over-the-counter treatments. Tr. 170. On the day after graduation,
Ms. Campbell went to the emergency room complaining of left shoulder pain.
Exhibit 6 at 2 (Dec. 20, 2015). The attending physician recorded that Ms.
Campbell’s shoulder pain returned the previous week after an injection had
initially worked well for the pain. Id. A few hours later Ms. Campbell was
discharged. Id.
On the next day, Ms. Campbell returned to the emergency room with left
shoulder pain and was eventually admitted to the hospital. Exhibit 6 at 18 (Dec.
21, 2015). Ms. Campbell reported to the emergency department physician that her
8

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 11
left shoulder pain had been present since her partner fainted and fell onto her. Id.
Ms. Campbell described an inexplicable increase in pain in the previous 48 hours
and later described it as an 8 or 9/10. Id.; Tr. 110. During the hearing, Ms.
Campbell challenged this note’s accuracy with respect to the pain’s onset but
agreed with its accuracy with respect to the pain’s severity. Tr. 41-42, 109.
Ms. Campbell explained that she did not remember much of the next day in
the hospital, December 22, 2015, due to being highly medicated and her shoulder
pain being worse than that of childbirth, 10/10. Tr. 43-44, 117. During this day,
the treating physician recorded the McDonald’s incident as Ms. Campbell’s partner
fainting and falling onto her and then Ms. Campbell falling to the ground hitting
her head and left shoulder. Exhibit 6 at 153. The physician noted that this incident
caused Ms. Campbell “ongoing intermittent quite severe pain” in her left shoulder
and neck that she did not have before. Id. In her testimony, Ms. Campbell also
challenged how the beginning of her pain was described. Tr. 117. Ms. Campbell
was discharged a day later. Exhibit 6 at 157-63.
Soon after Ms. Campbell returned to Texas, she saw Dr. Sargent and
reported increased severe pain during her trip to Idaho. Exhibit 4 at 5 (Dec. 29,
2015). Dr. Sargent noted that Ms. Campbell was scheduled for an MRI on the
same day. Id. Ms. Campbell agreed with the accuracy of this medical record. Tr.
114.
On January 7, 2016, Dr. Millican called Ms. Campbell to discuss her MRI.
Exhibit 3 at 23.4 Ms. Campbell testified that Dr. Millican also explained that the
virus from the flu vaccination could settle into the muscles of her arm and shoulder
attacking the nerves. Tr. 60-61. Based on the conversation with Dr. Millican, Ms.
Campbell began considering the flu vaccination as the source of her left shoulder
injury. Id. Through internet research, she found the law firm that filed her vaccine
claim. Id. 62. At the initial physical therapy appointment following her call with
Dr. Millican, Ms. Campbell for the first time reported the flu vaccination in
connection with her left shoulder pain. Exhibit 9 at 226. Ms. Campbell went
through different phases of physical therapy and began to improve her left
shoulder.
4 On the call, Dr. Millican opined that Ms. Campbell appeared to be suffering from
Parsonage-Turner syndrome. Exhibit 3 at 23. Ms. Campbell has not alleged Parsonage-Turner
syndrome as her injury.
9

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 10 of 11
On April 10, 2018, Dr. Millican wrote a letter for this litigation describing
Ms. Campbell’s left shoulder pain as beginning in October 2015. Exhibit 15. Dr.
Millican also stated that “I can not definitively say that [Ms. Campbell’s]
neurologic condition resulted from the [flu] vaccination.” Id. As for her current
status, Ms. Campbell testified that her left shoulder is back to being fine and she
has no daily living issues. Tr. 50, 116.
Findings of Fact
In the days following the October 7, 2015 vaccination, Ms. Campbell
suffered mild left shoulder pain. Ms. Campbell described the left shoulder pain as
a 2 or 3/10 during this time. Tr. 31, 55. During the trip to Vermont, while
requiring assistance with her bags, Ms. Campbell was still able to participate in the
site seeing and family events. Id. 36, 85, 55. She did not state that she missed any
events or that the schedule was changed to accommodate her. Ms. Campbell did
not seek medical attention during this trip, nor did she seek it when she returned
home. Id. 55-56. Thus, it seems likely that the mild shoulder pain was transient
and resolved within seven days of vaccination.
The resolution of Ms. Campbell’s mild shoulder pain is supported by its
mildness and her return to golf. Twelve days after vaccination, on October 20,
2015, Ms. Campbell played a full round of 18 holes of golf and earned a normal
score. Exhibit 16; Tr. 88. It seems unlikely that Ms. Campbell would have scored
as well as she did if she were having pain in her shoulder.
Ms. Campbell experienced new and more severe pain when Mr. Haekel fell
on her in McDonald’s on October 26, 2015. The medical records across various
providers consistently recorded Ms. Campbell describing the McDonald’s incident
as her partner falling on her and that her severe left shoulder pain began after this
incident. Exhibit 3 at 25-26 (Dr. Millican, Dec. 8, 2015); exhibit 4 at 8 (Dr.
Sargent, Dec. 9, 2015); exhibit 6 at 18 (hospital admission, Dec. 21, 2015); exhibit
6 at 153 (treating physician, Dec. 22, 2015). The consistency of the accounts in
four medical records reinforces the reliability of each record. For the doctors that
Ms. Campbell knew, Drs. Millican and Sargent, she agreed that they were good
doctors and listened well. Tr. 80, 82. Furthermore, Ms. Campbell generally
agreed with the accuracy of the information presented in the medical records,
objecting only to the documentation of when her shoulder pain began. It seems
unlikely that four independently recorded medical records would be accurate about
10

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 75 Filed 07/09/20 Page 11 of 11
most of Ms. Campbell’s problems, but wrong about the same detail.5 Under these
circumstances, it appears that the passage of time has diminished the accuracy of
Ms. Campbell’s memory and, therefore, the value of her testimony.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the undersigned finds that Ms. Campbell’s
severe left shoulder pain began on October 26, 2015.
The parties are ordered to provide this ruling to any expert they retain or
have retained. If the expert’s opinion is not consistent with these findings of fact,
the opinion is likely to not be persuasive. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (1993) (holding that the special master did not abuse his
discretion in refraining from conducting a hearing when the petitioner’s expert
“based his opinion on facts not substantiated by the record.”).
A status conference is set for Monday, June 29, 2020, at 2:00 PM Eastern
Time. Ms. Campbell should be prepared to propose the next step in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
5 The chiropractor’s records from October 28, 2015, to November 11, 2015 (exhibit 8 at
83-93) do not describe any shoulder pain. This omission is, in some respect, inconsistent with
the finding that Ms. Campbell began to have severe shoulder pain on October 27, 2015.
However, the omission is also inconsistent with Ms. Campbell’s argument that her shoulder pain
began on October 7, 2015. In other words, the chiropractor’s records do not help establish when
the shoulder pain began.
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00438-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-01-29
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/28/2020) regarding 78 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (jmw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 80 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATHLEEN CAMPBELL, *
* No. 17-438V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: December 28, 2020
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Entitlement, dismissal
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joseph A. Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
petitioner;
Lisa A. Watts and Althea Walker Davis, United States Dep’t of Justice,
Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Kathleen Campbell alleged that an influenza vaccine caused her to suffer an
injury to her left shoulder that developed within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine.
Pet., filed March 27, 20127. The information in the record, however, does not
show entitlement to an award under the Program primarily because the onset of
Ms. Campbell’s significant shoulder pain started after a fall, occurring
approximately three weeks after the vaccination.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special
master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post it on the United States Court of
Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note
(2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This posting
will make the decision available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the
parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other
information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special
master will appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 80 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History2
Ms. Campbell alleged a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) where she developed pain in her left shoulder within 24
hours of her October 7, 2015 influenza vaccination. Pet., filed Mar. 27, 2017, at 1.
Ms. Campbell filed medical records and eventually a statement of completion on
May 10, 2017.
Once the Secretary completed his review of the record, the parties engaged
in initial settlement negotiations. Resp’t’s Status Rep., filed Oct. 30, 2017. Before
proceeding further with settlement negotiations, Ms. Campbell requested the
opportunity to improve the factual foundations of her case by submitting affidavits
from fact witnesses. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Dec. 14, 2017. Ms. Campbell
submitted the affidavits and then proceeded with settlement. Pet’r’s Status Rep.
filed May 7, 2018. At a June 11, 2018 status conference, the Secretary noted that
settlement negotiations had continued, but he intended to proceed with the
litigation track and proposed a due date for his Rule 4 report.
In the Rule 4 report, the Secretary argued that Ms. Campbell’s pre-existing
shoulder injuries prevented her from claiming a Table SIRVA and her post-
vaccination left shoulder pain was the result of catching her partner, Joseph
Haeckel, when he fell. Resp’t’s Rep., filed July 6, 2018, at 6 n.4. After a status
conference to discuss the Rule 4 report, Ms. Campbell was ordered to provide an
affidavit to discuss her partner’s fall and to consider providing an affidavit from
her partner. Order, issued July 26, 2018. Ms. Campbell filed an affidavit
regarding the fall but did not file an affidavit from Mr. Haeckel. Exhibit 17. The
parties again entered into settlement negotiations.
At a November 16, 2018 status conference, the undersigned noted that the
parties had spent a long time in settlement negotiations considering the extent of
damages and the case would be placed in a queue for a fact hearing after Ms.
Campbell confirmed that all documentary evidence had been filed. Order, issued
Nov. 19, 2018. Ms. Campbell confirmed that all documentary evidence had been
filed but again requested additional time to resolve the case informally. Pet’r’s
Status Rep., filed Dec. 19, 2018.
After a few more months of negotiations, Ms. Campbell advised that the
parties had not been able to resolve the case informally and requested that a fact
2 Much of the procedural history is taken from the June 10, 2020 Ruling Finding Facts.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 80 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 4
hearing be scheduled. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Apr. 17, 2019. A fact hearing was
then scheduled and onset statements were ordered. Order, issued Dec. 19, 2019;
order issued Jan. 9, 2020. Ms. Campbell filed her onset statement and additional
evidence on February 21, 2020. The Secretary then filed his onset statement on
March 12, 2020.
The pre-hearing status conference clarified that the primary issues were
whether Ms. Campbell’s pre-vaccination shoulder pain resolved and when Ms.
Campbell’s shoulder pain began post-vaccination. Order, issued Apr. 6, 2020. A
fact hearing was held on April 16, 2020, in which Ms. Campbell and two other
witnesses testified.3
A June 10, 2020 Ruling found facts about the onset of Ms. Campbell’s
shoulder pain. Ms. Campbell began to experience severe shoulder pain on October
26, 2015, after she attempted to prevent her partner from falling at a McDonald’s
restaurant.
Following the June 10, 2020 Ruling, Ms. Campbell was given an
opportunity to express a plan for the next steps in her case. Ms. Campbell stated
that she did not intend to obtain a report from an expert. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed
July 29, 2020. To date, Ms. Campbell has not filed anything else.
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, a petitioner must prove either 1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e.,
an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of her
vaccinations, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a
vaccine. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1).
Ms. Campbell’s petition asserts an on-Table claim. While Ms. Campbell
alleged she suffered a shoulder injury starting within 48 hours of the vaccination,
the evidence did not support this allegation. The finding that Ms. Campbell’s
lasting shoulder pain started approximately three weeks after the vaccination meant
that Ms. Campbell could not prevail on her claim that she suffered an on-Table
injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
3 The hearing was originally scheduled to be held in San Antonio, Texas, but, due to
restrictions from the coronavirus pandemic, the hearing was held via video conferencing.
3

Case 1:17-vv-00438-UNJ Document 80 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 4
As an alternative to the on-Table claim, Ms. Campbell might pursue a
causation-in-fact claim. Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be given a
Program award based solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition
must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent
physician. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1). In this case, because the medical records
do not support petitioner’s claim based upon the facts as found in the June 10,
2020 Ruling, a medical opinion must be offered in support. However, Ms.
Campbell declined to present a medical opinion.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record that Ms. Campbell has failed to
demonstrate that she suffered a “Table Injury,” or that the flu vaccine “actually
caused” her shoulder problem.
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Jason Wiener, at
(202) 357-6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4