VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01316
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01316
Petitioner: Mindy Puckett
Filed: 2017-09-25
Decided: 2020-05-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-26
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 109737

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 25, 2017, Mindy Puckett filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 26, 2015. The Special Master previously ruled that Ms. Puckett received the flu vaccine in her left arm and that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The Respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed an amended report on March 10, 2020, stating that while preserving the right to appeal the court's findings of fact, the respondent submitted that the petitioner had otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA. The respondent requested a ruling on entitlement. Based on the respondent's position and the evidence of record, Special Master Katherine E. Oler ruled on March 24, 2020, that Ms. Puckett was entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties reached a proffer agreement for damages. On May 19, 2020, Special Master Oler issued a decision awarding Ms. Puckett a lump sum payment of $109,737.32. This award consisted of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering, $1,320.00 for lost wages, and $917.32 for past unreimbursed expenses. The decision was issued by Special Master Katherine E. Oler, with petitioner represented by Isaiah Kalinowski of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, and respondent represented by Lara Englund of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Mindy Puckett alleged SIRVA following an influenza vaccine on October 26, 2015. The Special Master previously found that the vaccine was administered in the left arm and that shoulder pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The Respondent conceded that Petitioner satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as a Table injury. The Special Master adopted the parties' proffer and awarded compensation. The award was a lump sum of $109,737.32, comprising $107,500.00 for pain and suffering, $1,320.00 for lost wages, and $917.32 for past unreimbursed expenses. The decision was issued by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on May 19, 2020. Petitioner counsel was Isaiah Kalinowski, and respondent counsel was Lara Englund.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01316-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-03-11
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/22/2020) regarding 46 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1316V
Filed: December 20, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
MINDY PUCKETT,
Petitioner, Findings of Fact; Onset and Site of
v. Vaccination; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Administration (SIRVA)
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
Oler, Special Master:
On September 25, 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 Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 26, 2015. Petition
at 1.
1 I intend 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, I agree that the identified material fits
within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling
contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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. 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 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner was administered a flu vaccine on
October 26, 2015 in her left arm and that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours
of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On September 25, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition alleging that she suffered from SIRVA
as a result of a flu vaccine administered on October 26, 2015. Pet. at 1. Petitioner filed medical
records on October 3, 2017, January 3, 2018, and October 22, 2018. ECF Nos. 7, 12, 24. Petitioner
filed her initial affidavit on November 27, 2017. Ex. 2.
On July 30, 2018, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report (“Resp’t’s Rep.”). ECF No. 19.
Respondent stated that Petitioner had not established a Table injury because she had not adequately
documented onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination, and because Petitioner had not
demonstrated that she received her vaccination in her left shoulder. Resp’t’s Rep. at 7. Respondent
further stated that Petitioner had not provided evidence that satisfies her burden of proof under
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and thus has not
established causation in fact. Id. at 8-9.
Petitioner filed a second affidavit on August 9, 2018, noting, among other things, that her
vaccination form was incorrect when it noted that she received the flu vaccine in her right arm.
Ex. 9. In support of this assertion, on August 28, 2019, Petitioner filed an affidavit from the owner
of M-D Pharmacy, Mr. Michael Glessing. Ex. 10.
Petitioner filed a Supplemental Affidavit on January 9, 2019. Ex. 12. In that document,
Petitioner stated that she did not sign the vaccination form on the date of vaccination. Id. at 2. She
further indicated that based on her conversations with representatives from the pharmacy, they do
not keep contemporaneous records detailing vaccination. Id.
I held a status conference with the parties on March 1, 2019 where we discussed the posture
of the case. I told the parties that I found Mr. Glessing’s affidavit to be somewhat unclear and
asked that he answer some specific questions from me. See ECF No. 29.
On June 7, 2019, Petitioner submitted a second affidavit from Mr. Glessing which
answered my questions. Ex. 13. In this document, Mr. Glessing stated that the original vaccination
record had been lost, and the document submitted was recreated after the fact. Id. at 3. I ordered
Respondent to file a status report indicating how he would like to proceed. See Non-PDF dated
6/17/2019.
On July 30, 2019, Respondent filed a status report stating their position had not changed.
See ECF No. 33. Respondent indicated that the vaccination form is not reliable and “thus, there is
no contemporaneous evidence of the site of petitioner’s vaccination.” Id. at 2. Respondent further
stated that Petitioner has either “created the false impression that the consent form was a
contemporaneous medical record” or “was involved in creating a falsified document.” Id. at 2-3.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 6
I issued an order on October 2, 2019, scheduling a fact hearing in this case. ECF No. 36.
I conducted the hearing on November 21, 2019 in Washington, D.C. See Minute Entry of
November 21, 2019. This matter is now ripe for a determination on facts.
II. Issues
There are two issues in this case: (1) whether Petitioner was administered a flu vaccine on
October 26, 2015 in her injured left arm, and (2) whether Petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset after vaccine administration was within 48 hours as set forth in the Vaccine
Injury Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination). The Qualifications and
aids to interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA also require that a Petitioner’s pain occurs within
48 hours. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act § 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act § 11(c)(1). A petitioner must offer
evidence that leads the “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its
nonexistence before [he or she] 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).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an injury
occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though the occurrence
of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly recorded as having occurred
outside such period.” Vaccine Act § 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may be made only upon
demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of the injury] . . . did in fact
occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id.
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s
injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Vaccine Act § 13(b)(1). “Medical records,
in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information
supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.
With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are
also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Curcuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, when determining the impact of the evidence presented, the special master
should consider factors such as the reliability and consistency of the evidence. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “Written records which are,
themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally
consistent. If a record was prepared by a disinterested person who later acknowledged that the
entry was incorrect in some respect, the later correction must be taken into account.” Murphy v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 6
25, 1991), mot. for rev. denied, 23 Cl. Ct. 726 (1991), aff'd per curium, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
IV. Findings of Fact
a. Site of Vaccination
I find that the record in this case establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
Petitioner was administered a flu vaccine in her left arm on October 26, 2015. I make the
aforementioned finding after a complete review of the record, including all medical records,
Petitioner’s affidavits, other documentary evidence, and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report.
Specifically, I base this finding on the following evidence:
 On October 26, 2015, Petitioner visited M-D Pharmacy and received her flu
shot. See Ex. 1 at 1-4. This record (hereinafter “screening questionnaire”)
indicates that the administration site was “RA” or right arm. Id. at 4. What
purports to be Petitioner’s signature appears on this screening questionnaire.
Id.
 Mr. Michael Glessing, the owner of M-D Pharmacy, signed two affidavits in
this case. Notably, Mr. Glessing stated that the original vaccination record had
been lost, and the screening questionnaire was recreated after the fact. Ex. 13
at 1. According to Mr. Glessing, the duplicate screening questionnaire was
signed by him and by Petitioner. Id. at 2. He repeatedly stated that this form
should not be trusted because it was not a contemporaneously-created
document. Id.
 Petitioner agrees that the screening questionnaire was not created at the time of
vaccination. She disputes that she signed the screening questionnaire, and states
that the only signature she provided relating to her flu shot was when she signed
a screen indicating receipt of her medication and flu vaccine. Tr. at 34, 79. See
Ex. 1 at 2.
 Petitioner testified that on April 6, 2017, Mr. Glessing asked her to come into
the pharmacy to sign a HIPAA form so that her medical documents from M-D
Pharmacy could be released to her attorney. Ex. 12 at 2. Tr. at 22-23. She
signed the form on that date. See Ex. 12 at 7.
 Petitioner testified that she never signed the duplicate screening questionnaire
and that her signature was forged. Tr. at 16. Petitioner believes that Mr.
Glessing used her signature from the HIPAA form to forge her signature on the
duplicate screening questionnaire. Id. at 80.
 Because of these documented irregularities, I find that the screening
questionnaire is not a reliable document.
 Petitioner’s medical records clarify that she received her flu shot in her left arm.
 On November 11, 2015, Petitioner visited her primary care provider. During
this visit, she complained of a sore left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 17.
 On January 14, 2016 Petitioner saw Dr. Ostlie and stated that she had been
having left shoulder discomfort since October 2015. Ex. 2 at 7.
4

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 6
 On June 9, 2016, Petitioner had an MRI of her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 1-2.
 On July 14, 2016, Petitioner attributed her left shoulder pain to her flu shot. Ex.
5 at 1648.
 On September 14, 2016, Petitioner reported that she had been experiencing left
shoulder pain for one year. Ex. 5 at 1700.
 On November 7, 2016, Petitioner had left shoulder surgery due to a left shoulder
rotator cuff tear. Ex. 5 at 1820.
 In her affidavits, Petitioner stated that she received her flu shot in her left arm.
Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 12 at 1.
 During the fact hearing, Petitioner testified that she received her flu shot in her
left arm. Tr. at 69.
b. Onset
Based upon the record as a whole, and specifically the evidence cited below, I find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain occurred within 48
hours after the administration of the October 26, 2015 flu vaccine.
 As established above, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm on
October 26, 2015.
 On November 11, 2015, 16 days after vaccination, Petitioner presented to Dr.
Topley, her primary care doctor. Ex. 2 at 17. Petitioner told Dr. Topley that
she had a sore left shoulder. Although the record reflects Dr. Topley’s
observation that Petitioner had been carrying a heavy purse, the record does not
indicate that Petitioner attributed her pain to any specific event. During the
hearing, Petitioner specifically testified that she did not believe the large purse
contributed to her shoulder pain. Tr. at 40.
 Petitioner sent an email to Dr. Topley on January 8, 2016. In this email she
wrote, “I went through my schedule and realized that I had my flu shot at my
pharmacy the same day that my shoulder started bothering me. Is it possible
that this is related?” Ex. 7 at 1.
 On January 14, 2016, Petitioner saw Dr. Ostlie and stated that she had been
having left shoulder discomfort since October 2015. Ex. 2 at 7.
 Petitioner completed a VAERS form on May 26, 2016. In it she stated “After
supper on 10/26/15 I noticed my arm was sore and hurt when I moved it. This
pain and restricted movement has not changed since then.” Ex. 15 at 1.
 On July 14, 2016, Petitioner visited Dr. Sehgal and attributed her left shoulder
pain to her flu shot. Ex. 5 at 1646.
 In her affidavit dated August 9, 2018, Petitioner stated that she developed pain
and stiffness in her left shoulder on the same day she received the flu shot. Ex.
9 at 2.
 During the fact hearing, Petitioner testified that she experienced pain the same
day that she received the flu vaccine. Tr. at 35-38, 70-71.
5

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 6
I find that the affidavits submitted by and on behalf of Petitioner, the testimony, the medical
records, and other documentary evidence work in concert to provide preponderant evidence that
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination.
V. Conclusion
In light of all of the above and in view of the record as a whole, I find that (1) Petitioner
was administered an influenza vaccine in her left arm on October 26, 2015, and (2) the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder symptoms, including pain, occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
The parties are encouraged to consider an informal resolution of this claim.
Petitioner shall file a joint status report by no later than Tuesday, February 18, 2020,
updating the court on the status of the parties’ settlement discussions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01316-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 3/24/2020) regarding 52 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 61 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1316V
Filed: March 24, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
MINDY PUCKETT,
Ruling on Entitlement;; Flu Vaccine;
Petitioner, Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
v. Administration (SIRVA)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Oler, Special Master:
On September 25, 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 Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 26, 2015. Petition
at 1.
1 I intend 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, I agree that the identified material fits
within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling
contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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. 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 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 61 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2
On January 22, 2020, I ruled that Petitioner was administered a flu vaccine on October 26,
2015 in her left arm and that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
On March 10, 2020, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4 Report. Amended Resp.’s Rep., ECF
No. 47.
In his Amended Report, Respondent recognizes that “the Court’s factual findings are the
law of the case.” Amended Resp.’s Rep. at 2. Respondent adds that subject to his right to appeal
my January 22, 2020 Findings of Fact, “respondent submits that petitioner has otherwise satisfied
the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
for SIRVA.” Id. Respondent requested a ruling on the record regarding petitioner’s entitlement
to compensation. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that the Petitioner
is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01316-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-19
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 3/24/2020) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 62 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1316V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINDY PUCKETT, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: April 2, 2020
*
v. *
* Entitlement; Decision by Proffer; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
HUMAN SERVICES * Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”)
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lara Englund, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 25, 2017, Petitioner Mindy Puckett filed a petition seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that she developed
a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on October 26, 2015. Petition, ECF No. 1.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet.
As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion
of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen
days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret
or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files
or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine
Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that
statutory prefix).

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 62 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 4
On January 22, 2020, I issued a ruling on onset finding that Petitioner “was administered
a flu vaccine on October 26, 2015 in her left arm and that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination.” Ruling on Onset, ECF No. 46.
On March 10, 2020, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) Report (“Respondent’s Am.
Rep.”), stating that “While preserving his right to appeal the Court’s January 22, 2020 Findings of
Fact, respondent submits that petitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine
Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA.” Respondent’s Am.
Rep. at 2, ECF No. 47. Respondent also requested a ruling on entitlement for the record. Id.
In light of Respondent’s request, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement on March 24, 2020. ECF
No. 52. I subsequently ordered the parties to inform the Court on their progress towards resolving
damages. See Non-PDF Scheduling Order of March 24, 2020.
Respondent filed a proffer on April 1, 2020 (ECF No. 53), agreeing to issue the following
payments:
a. a lump sum payment of $109,737.32 for all damages, paid in the form of a check
to Petitioner.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation for all damages that would be
available under § 300aa-15(a).
I adopt the parties’ proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on
the terms set forth therein. I, therefore, award compensation in the amount of a lump sum
payment of $109,737.32, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Mindy Puckett. The
clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
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.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 62 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MINDY PUCKETT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 17-1316V
) Special Master Katherine Oler
SECRETARY OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On March 10, 2020, respondent filed an amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) report stating that he
would not defend this case, which alleges that petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration within the Table timeframe following an influenza vaccination, under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34.
Accordingly, on March 24, 2010, the Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement.
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $109,737.32, consisting of
$107,500.00 in pain and suffering, $1,320.00 in lost wages, and $917.32 in past, unreimbursed
expenses, which amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:17-vv-01316-UNJ Document 62 Filed 05/19/20 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 $109,737.32 in the form of a check 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/ LARA A. ENGLUND
LARA A. ENGLUND
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) 307-3013
E-mail: lara.a.englund@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 1, 2020
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.
2