VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01146
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01146
Petitioner: Linda Cartmel
Filed: 2017-08-24
Decided: 2019-08-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-26
Condition: left shoulder injury
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 51097

AI-assisted case summary:
Linda Cartmel filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on August 24, 2017, alleging a left shoulder injury resulting from an influenza vaccine administered on December 26, 2016. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report on May 7, 2019, stating that they did not contest the petitioner's entitlement to compensation, acknowledging that all legal prerequisites for an award under the Act had been met. Based on the respondent's position and the existing record, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a ruling on entitlement on May 14, 2019, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on June 6, 2019, the parties submitted a proffer on the award of compensation. The respondent proposed an award of $51,096.97, which included $50,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering and $1,096.97 for past unreimbursable expenses. The petitioner agreed with this proffered award. Chief Special Master Dorsey adopted the proffer and issued a decision on June 12, 2019, awarding Linda Cartmel a lump sum payment of $51,096.97. This award was to be paid via a check made payable to Linda Cartmel and represented compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The attorneys involved were Andrew Donald Downing for the petitioner and Jennifer Leigh Reynaud for the respondent. The decision was signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Linda Cartmel received an influenza vaccine on December 26, 2016, and subsequently developed a left shoulder injury, diagnosed as Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that petitioner met the legal prerequisites for an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The case proceeded as a Table injury claim. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The award was based on a proffer agreed to by both parties. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey awarded a total of $51,096.97, consisting of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,096.97 for past unreimbursable expenses, paid as a lump sum. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew Donald Downing, and respondent's counsel was Jennifer Leigh Reynaud. The ruling on entitlement was issued on May 14, 2019, and the decision awarding damages was issued on June 12, 2019.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01146-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-05-29
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/01/2019) regarding 29 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1146
Filed: April 1, 2019
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINDA CARTMEL, *
*
Petitioner, * Fact Ruling; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
v. * Administration (“SIRVA”); Onset;
* Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON FACTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On August 24, 2017, Linda Cartmel (“petitioner” or “Ms. Cartmel”) 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 the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine she received on December 26, 2016, caused her to suffer a left shoulder
injury satisfying the definition of a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”) as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14 (“Vaccine Injury Table”). Petition at 1, 4.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”).
Before the undersigned is petitioner’s motion for a fact ruling on the issue of
onset. After a review of the record as a whole, and for the reasons set forth below, the
1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, undersigned is required 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).
1

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 8
undersigned finds by preponderant evidence that Ms. Cartmel’s left shoulder pain
occurred within forty-eight hours of her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination.
I. Procedural History
In support of her petition, petitioner filed medical records and her affidavit. ECF
No. 6 (Pet.’s Exs. 1 (affidavit), 2-10 (medical records)).2 An initial status conference
was held on October 3, 2017. Following the conference, respondent was ordered to
provide his position in the case indicating whether he was amenable to settlement.
Order, ECF. No. 9.
On May 7, 2018, respondent reported that he intended to defend the case and
requested a deadline be set for a Rule 4(c) report. ECF No. 16. Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) report on July 13, 2018, contesting petitioner’s claim to vaccine injury
compensation. Resp. Rep., ECF No. 19. In it, respondent posits that petitioner has not
established by preponderant evidence that the onset of her injury occurred within forty-
eight hours of her December 26, 2016 influenza vaccination. Id. at 6-7. Following the
filing of respondent’s report, petitioner filed additional medical records as well as
statements from her brother, Thomas Buice, and husband, Thomas B. Cartmel. ECF
No. 20 (Pet.’s Ex. 12, (Statement of Thomas Buice), Pet.’s Ex. 13 (Statement of
Thomas B. Cartmel); ECF No. 22 (Pet.’s Exs. 14-17 (medical records)); ECF No. 23
(Pet.’s Ex. 18 (text message screenshots between Linda Cartmel and Jade Henderson),
Pet.’s Ex. 19 (Amazon purchase invoice), Pet.’s Ex. 20 (Aff. of Jade Henderson)).
A status conference was held on August 20, 2018 to discuss future proceedings
following respondent’s Rule 4(c) report contesting entitlement. Order, ECF No. 24.
During the conference, respondent reported that the additional affidavit evidence filed
by petitioner did not change his position. Id. A tentative schedule was discussed for
proceeding with a fact ruling by the undersigned on this issue of onset. Id. Following
the conference, the undersigned reviewed the record and determined that a fact hearing
would not be necessary. Id. A schedule was set for petitioner to file a motion for fact
ruling as to onset. Id.
On September 27, 2018, petitioner filed her motion for fact ruling as to the issue
of onset. Pet.’s Mot., ECF No. 25. Following an unopposed motion for extension,
respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion on December 12, 2018. Resp. ECF
No. 27. Petitioner filed a reply on December 14, 2018. Reply, ECF No. 28.
The motion is now ripe for ruling.
2 Petitioner later filed a letter from Florida Blue detailing the changing network status of Dr. Pradeep
Vangala. ECF. No. 10 (Pet.’s Ex. 11).
2

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 8
II. Relevant Medical Records
Petitioner was a sixty-nine-year-old retired regional property manager when she
received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on December 26, 2016, at Publix pharmacy in
Ocala, Florida. Ex. 2 at 1-2; Ex. 4 at 5. Petitioner’s medical history was significant for
anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder for which she was prescribed Xanax. Ex. 6
at 7; Pet. Ex. 7 at 1, 16; Pet. Ex. 10 at 4-5.
In a letter dated January 18, 2017, petitioner’s insurance provider reminded her
that as of January 1, 2017, her primary care physician was no longer in her HMO
provider network. Ex. 11. On February 20, 2017, petitioner saw Adrian Moreno, M.D.,
as a new patient establishing care. Ex. 8 at 1, 5. The records from this appointment
indicate that petitioner sought a refill of her anxiety medication. Id. Dr. Moreno did not
refill her medication for reasons set forth in the records. Id. No shoulder pain was
noted in the record. Routine urinalysis and bloodwork was ordered and returned normal
results. Id. at 6-10.
On March 20, 2017, petitioner established care with another primary care
physician, Jose Roman, M.D. Ex. 3 at 34-36. “Left arm and shoulder pain” was listed
as a reason for the appointment. Ex. 3 at 34. Dr. Roman’s assessments included
PTSD, primary osteoarthritis of left shoulder, impacted cerumen of left ear, and anxiety.
Id. Dr. Roman refilled petitioner’s anxiety medication and ordered an x-ray of her left
shoulder that was unremarkable. Id.; Ex. 9 at 9.
Dr. Roman later ordered an MRI of petitioner’s left shoulder which was
completed on April 7, 2017. Ex. 9 at 6-7. The MRI showed mild to moderate tendonitis
of the supra and infraspinatus with a partial interstitial tear of the conjoined tendon for
these muscles; mild to moderate subscapular tendonitis; moderate capsulitis with small
to moderate effusion possibly reactive in origin on inflammatory arthritis; fraying of the
superior labrum; mild AC joint arthritis with a downsloping acromion process, possibly
predisposing petitioner to shoulder impingement syndrome. Id. Dr. Roman referred
petitioner to an orthopedist. Ex. 3 at 16.
On April 21, 2017, petitioner saw Leah A. Sadler, ARNP, at Dr. Roman’s office,
concerned about a swollen lymph node. Ex. 3 at 30-32. On examination, petitioner had
limited range of motion in her left shoulder. Id. Nurse Sadler assessed petitioner with
adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) and supraclavicular fossa fullness. Id. at 31. A
chest x-ray and thyroid ultrasound were completed, and no abnormalities were
observed. Id. Petitioner was prescribed hydrocodone and given “Frozen Shoulder:
Care Instructions.” Id.
On May 3, 2017, on referral from Dr. Roman, petitioner saw orthopedic surgeon
Derek J. Farr, D.O., for a non-surgical consultation on her left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 5.
On the intake form, petitioner wrote that she was being seen for “L Shoulder, Deltoid
Arm, Elbow, forearm, wrist.” Id. at 104. Petitioner told Dr. Farr that her left shoulder
3

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 4 of 8
“pain has been present since 12/26/16 when she had a flu shot.” Id. at 101. The
examination showed positive shoulder impingement, limited range of motion, and
normal strength in petitioner’s left shoulder. Id. at 103. Dr. Farr noted that the MRI was
consistent with adhesive capsulitis and bursitis. Id. Dr. Farr administered a
corticosteroid injection in petitioner’s left shoulder and referred her for physical therapy
(PT). Id.
On May 9, 2017, petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation and
reported “off the chart” left shoulder pain since her December 2016 flu vaccine until
receiving a steroid injection. Ex. 5 at 99.
Petitioner saw Dr. Roman for a follow-up on June 20, 2017. Ex. 3 at 22-24. Her
examination was as normal and petitioner reported that she had stopped taking the
narcotic pain medication after receiving a steroid injection. Id. On June 21, 2017,
petitioner saw Quint Klingbeil, PA-C, who with Dr. Farr’s office. Ex. 5 at 69-72.
Petitioner reported that she was attending PT and had improved following the last
steroid injection. Id. Petitioner was given a second corticosteroid injection in her left
shoulder. Id. Petitioner continued with physical therapy. Ex. 5 at 50-63.
III. Legal Standard
A petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual
circumstances surrounding her claim. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(A). To resolve
factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented, which may
include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special master
must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed
to be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony,
a petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 90–2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Act, the special master may find the time period for the
first symptom or manifestation of onset required for a Table injury is satisfied “even
though the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was
incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such a period.” § 13(b)(2). “Such a
finding may be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that
the onset . . . occurred within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
(Id.; accord Tenneson v. HHS, No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018) (finding, despite prior records indicating non-tender extremities,
that “respondent unreasonably dismisses petitioner's contemporaneous treatment
records since the records were not created contemporaneously with the onset of
4

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 5 of 8
petitioner's shoulder pain.”), mot. for rev. denied, --- Fed. Cl. ---, 2019 WL 1235644
(Feb. 28, 2019)).
Despite the weight afforded medical records, special masters are not bound
rigidly by those records in determining onset of a petitioner’s symptoms. Vallenzuela v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-1002V, 1991 WL 182241, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Aug. 30, 1991); see also Eng v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-1754V,
1994 WL 67704, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 18, 1994) (Section 13(b)(2) “must be
construed so as to give effect also to § 13(b)(1) which directs the special master or
court to consider the medical records (reports, diagnosis, conclusions, medical
judgment, test reports, etc.), but does not require the special master or court to be
bound by them”).
IV. Discussion
Effective for petitions filed beginning on March 21, 2017, SIRVA is an injury listed
on the Vaccine Injury Table. See Vaccine Injury Table: Qualifications and aids to
interpretation. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). The undersigned’s findings are informed by
the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA criteria used to evaluate such
claims. The criteria are as follows:
A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such
recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation
or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine
administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination
findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; (ii) Pain
occurs within the specified time-frame; (iii) Pain and reduced range of
motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was
administered; and (iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that
would explain the patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence
of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other
neuropathy).
Id.; see also National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine
Injury Table, 80 Fed. Reg. 45132, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, July 29, 2015 (citing
Atanasoff S, Ryan T, Lightfoot R, and Johann-Liang R, 2010, Shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (SIRVA), Vaccine 28(51):8049-8052).
The parties dispute whether petitioner has satisfied the second SIRVA criteria:
“[pain occur[ring] within the specified time-frame.” To meet this criterion, petitioner must
show by preponderant evidence that her left shoulder pain began within forty-eight
hours of her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(A); 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
Petitioner alleges that the onset of her left shoulder pain occurred immediately
after receiving the flu vaccination in the same shoulder on December 26, 2016. Mot. at
5

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 6 of 8
1. Respondent argues that petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence that her
left shoulder pain began with forty-eight hours after receiving the flu vaccination alleged
as causal. Resp. at 6-9. Respondent premises his argument on what he characterizes
as discrepancies between petitioner’s non-medical onset evidence (affidavits, proof of
purchase of medical goods, and text message screenshots), and petitioner’s medical
records. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned declines to adopt the
inferences respondent offers and finds instead that petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence that her left shoulder pain began within forty-eight hours from
her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination.
Turning first to petitioner’s treatment records, when noted, onset is consistently
placed within 48 hours of her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination. Ex. 5 at 37 (“patient
presents with left shoulder pain and stiffness which has been present since December
2016. States she began having symptoms after a flu shot”); Ex. 5 at 38 (“[left shoulder
pain] has been present since 12/26/16 when she had a flu shot”); Ex. 5 at 101.
Respondent notes that petitioner’s May 3, 2017 appointment with orthopedic
surgeon Dr. Derek J. Farr is “more than four months after her flu vaccination” and “is the
first mention of a temportal [sic] association between petitioner’s flu vaccine and the
onset of her shoulder pain.” Resp. at 5 n.2 (referring to Ex. 5 at 101). Respondent
adds that petitioner “had been seen four times by three different medical providers in
the interim.” Respondent’s representation is not a fair picture of petitioner’s course of
treatment.
More accurately stated, petitioner had three office visits and imaging completed
in the time between her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination and her May 3, 2017
appointment with Dr. Farr. See Ex. 3 at 30-34; Ex. 8; Ex. 9. The first of these interim
office visits was with Dr. Moreno. Ex. 8. The undersigned is satisfied with petitioner’s
explanation as to why she did not discuss her left shoulder pain with Dr. Moreno. Ex. 1
at ¶10. The two remaining visits were with Dr. Roman’s practice for treatment of left
shoulder pain. Dr. Roman’s records lack a description of the onset of this pain. Ex. 3 at
30-34.
Respondent unreasonably dismisses petitioner’s medical records for seemingly
paradoxical reasons. Respondent dismisses the probative value of petitioner’s May
2017 orthopedic records because they were not created more contemporaneously with
petitioner’s alleged December 2016 left shoulder pain onset. Resp. at 5 n.2 (referring to
Ex. 5 at 101). Likewise, respondent also dismisses petitioner’s March and April 2017
left shoulder treatment records – which are more contemporaneous with the onset of
her shoulder pain – because they do not explicitly identify a date of onset. Resp. at 4
(referring to Ex. 3 at 30-34). The undersigned is not persuaded and instead finds each
of petitioner’s treatment records to be consistent with a finding that petitioner’s left
shoulder pain began within forty-eight hours following her receipt of the flu vaccine on
December 26, 2016.
6

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 7 of 8
Moreover, petitioner’s affidavit testimony is supported by the medical records.
Petitioner has provided insurance records corroborating her need to reestablish a
primary care provider. Compare Ex. 1 at ¶8 with Ex. 11. When petitioner was able to
see a new provider, her need for a refill of medication to treat her ongoing anxiety
complicated the visit. The records from petitioner’s February 20, 2017 appointment with
Dr. Moreno illustrate that petitioner’s chief concern was to obtain a new prescription for
her routine anxiety medication. Ex. 8 at 5. Unable to do so, petitioner sought a new
provider with whom she was able to renew her anxiety prescription and seek treatment
for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 34.
Even if petitioner had delayed seeking treatment for less significant reasons it
would not negate the value or credibility of her ongoing treatment records. While a
delay in seeking treatment might illustrate the severity of an injury, here Ms. Cartel has
offered compelling testimony ascribing what can be characterized as a modest delay
due to extraneous and unfortunate circumstances.
The undersigned does not find petitioner’s delay in treatment to be dispositive
given the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner provided a cogent and
credible explanation of why she delayed reporting her left shoulder pain to a medical
provider. After twenty-five years with the same primary care physician, petitioner was
forced to find a new provider for insurance reasons. Ex. 11. Petitioner avers that given
this unforeseen circumstance, in conjunction with her travel to care for her sister, getting
a timely appointment was problematic. Ex. 1 at ¶¶7-11.
Respondent argues that petitioner’s non-medical evidence lacks any weight.
Respondent offers that the text messages provided by affiant Jade Henderson are
inherently unreliable and may instead reference petitioner’s other shoulder. Resp. at 8
(citing Ex. 18). Respondent also asks the undersigned to infer, contrary to petitioner’s
sworn statement, that the heating pad she ordered in January 2017 (Ex. 19) was
instead for her sister. Yet, this evidence – provided under oath – supports petitioner’s
stated recollection that she was experiencing left shoulder pain in the months following
her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination. The undersigned finds petitioner’s testimony,
and that of her witness Jade Henderson, to be credible and persuasive.
Petitioner also submitted statements from her brother, Thomas Buice (Ex. 12),
and husband, Thomas B. Cartmel (Ex. 13). Both Mr. Buice and Mr. Cartmel recall
petitioner having persistent left shoulder pain beginning on December 26, 2016. Exs.
12 & 13. The undersigned credits these statements as consistent with petitioner’s
recollection.
Medical records generally “warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.”
Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528. Here, Ms. Cartmel’s medical records clearly identify her
December 26, 2016 flu vaccination as the start of her left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 37, 38,
101. Additionally, the undersigned deems petitioner’s sworn statement, and the
statements of her witnesses to be reasonable and credible. Exs. 1, 12, 13, 20. Thus,
7

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 33 Filed 05/29/19 Page 8 of 8
the undersigned finds that petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that her left
shoulder pain began within 48 hours of her December 26, 2016 flu vaccination.
V. Conclusion
The undersigned finds, based on the record as a whole, that the onset of
petitioner’s left shoulder pain occurred within forty-eight hours of the flu vaccination she
received on December 26, 2016.
The parties are encouraged to again consider an informal resolution of this claim.
Petitioner shall file a joint status report by no later than Wednesday, May 1, 2019,
updating the court on the status of the parties’ progress toward informal
resolution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01146-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-08-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/14/2019) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/14/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1146V
Filed: May 14, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
LINDA CARTMEL,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On August 24, 2017, 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 alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on December 26, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 7, 2019, respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that he does not contest that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “based on the
record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Ruling on Facts,
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is required 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).
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/14/19 Page 2 of 2
respondent does not dispute that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6.
In view of respondent’s position 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_17-vv-01146-2
Date issued/filed: 2019-08-29
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/12/2019) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/29/19 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1146V
Filed: June 12, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
LINDA CARTMEL,
Petitioner,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v.
Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES,
Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On August 24, 2017, 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 alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on December 26, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 14, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for shoulder injury. On June 6, 2019, respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $51,096.97. Proffer
at 2. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered
award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, undersigned is required 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).
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/29/19 Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $51,096.97, representing compensation for
actual and projected pain and suffering ($50,000.00) and past unreimbursable
expenses ($1,096.97), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Linda Cartmel.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under §
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 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/29/19 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LINDA CARTMEL,
Petitioner, No. 17-1146V
v. Chief Special Master Dorsey
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF DAMAGES
On August 24, 2017, Linda Cartmel (“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. In his Amended Rule 4(c) Report, filed on May 7,
2019, respondent recommended that the Chief Special Master decide the issue of entitlement in
this case based on the record. The Chief Special Master found petitioner entitled to
compensation.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00 in actual and projected
pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain and suffering has
been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents her expenditure of past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,096.97. Petitioner agrees.
1

Case 1:17-vv-01146-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/29/19 Page 4 of 4
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $51,096.97, in the form of a check made payable to petitioner. 1
This lump sum payment represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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: June 6, 2019
1 Should petitioner die prior to the 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 lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2