VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01831
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01831
Petitioner: Afshin Khan
Filed: 2017-11-22
Decided: 2020-02-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-04
Condition: left shoulder injury
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 81013

AI-assisted case summary:
Afshin Khan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 22, 2017, alleging a left shoulder injury resulting from an influenza vaccination received on October 4, 2016. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On August 19, 2019, the respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report conceding that Ms. Khan was entitled to compensation. The respondent stated that, in light of a Chief Special Master's fact ruling and the submitted medical record evidence, they concluded that the petitioner suffered Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that the residual effects of her condition lasted for more than six months. On August 23, 2019, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding the petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on January 6, 2020, the parties submitted a proffer for an award of compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on February 13, 2020, awarding Afshin Khan a total of $81,013.87. This award comprised $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,013.87 for unreimbursable expenses, to be paid as a lump sum check payable to Ms. Khan. Petitioner was represented by Alison H. Haskins of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, and respondent was represented by Althea Walker Davis of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury beyond its classification as SIRVA.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Afshin Khan received an influenza vaccine on October 4, 2016, and alleged a left shoulder injury, diagnosed as Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury was SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that residual effects lasted more than six months. The case proceeded as a Table claim. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a ruling on entitlement on August 23, 2019. Subsequently, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on February 13, 2020, awarding $81,013.87 ($80,000.00 for pain and suffering, $1,013.87 for unreimbursable expenses) as a lump sum payment. Petitioner was represented by Alison H. Haskins, and respondent by Althea Walker Davis. The public text does not detail specific medical experts, clinical findings, or the precise mechanism of injury beyond the Table definition.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01831-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-09-11
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/28/2019) regarding 40 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1831V
Filed: June 28, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
AFSHIN KHAN,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Finding of Fact; Onset; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Related to Vaccine Administration
HUMAN SERVICES, (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Justine Elizabeth Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDING OF FACT – SPECIAL PROCESSING UNIT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On November 22, 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 resulting from
her October 4, 2016 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1-3. A shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration, or “SIRVA,” is entitled to a presumption of causation if
the injury meets the criteria set forth in the statutory Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation (“QAI”) (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)) and the first symptom or manifestation
occurs within forty-eight hours (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)). In this case, however,
respondent contends that there is not preponderant evidence that petitioner’s injury
manifested within 48 hours of vaccination. For the reasons described below, the
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-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 2 of 6
undersigned now finds that there is preponderant evidence that petitioner’s shoulder
injury manifested within forty-eight hours of her vaccination.
I. Procedural History
As noted above, petitioner filed her petition on November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
To support the petition, she initially filed medical records marked as Exhibits (“Ex.”) 1-7
on November 29, 2017. (ECF No. 6.) She later filed an affidavit marked as Exhibit 8 on
December 15, 2017. (ECF No. 9.) This affidavit was limited to confirming that she
meets the jurisdictional requirements of this Program. (Id.) Updated medical records
marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 were filed on May 1 and July 31, 2018. (ECF Nos. 14, 22.)
On September 7, 2018, respondent filed a status report indicating that he was
willing to engage in tentative settlement discussions. (ECF No. 23.) While the parties
attempted to reach an informal resolution, petitioner filed updated medical records
marked as Exhibits 11 and 12 as well as a narrative affidavit by petitioner marked as
Exhibit 13 describing the onset and course of her shoulder injury. (ECF No. 26.)
On November 8, 2018, petitioner filed a status report indicating that the parties’
settlement discussions had stalled and requested that respondent file his Rule 4 Report.
(ECF No. 29.) Respondent filed his report on April 19, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) In his
report, respondent recommended that compensation be denied in this case. (Id. at 1.)
Relevant to this finding of fact, respondent contended that “[i]t is unclear from the
medical records when after vaccination the onset of petitioner’s symptoms occurred and
she did not seek treatment until seven weeks later. Therefore, there is not a
preponderance of evidence that the onset of petitioner’s condition occurred within forty-
eight hours of vaccination as required under the Vaccine Injury Table.”3 (ECF No. 32, p.
5.)
Upon review of the record evidence and respondent’s report, the undersigned
concluded that a fact finding as to the onset of petitioner’s shoulder injury would be
appropriate. (ECF No. 33.) The undersigned allowed the parties 30 days, until May 28,
2019, to file any additional evidence they wished to have considered. (Id.) The
undersigned also indicated that briefs are not necessary. (Id.) However, on May 28,
2019, petitioner filed motion for extension of time in order to file a witness affidavit by
her brother regarding the onset of her condition. (ECF No. 34.) Petitioner subsequently
filed the affidavit, marked as Exhibit 14, on June 10, 2019, (ECF No. 38-2.)
The case is now ripe for the undersigned’s finding of fact.
II. Factual History
In reaching her conclusion, the undersigned has reviewed the entirety of the
records filed in this case; however, for purposes of this limited fact finding, only a few of
those records are highlighted herein.
3 Respondent also indicated that petitioner has not established a cause-in-fact claim; however, petitioner
has not to date been provided an opportunity to obtain an expert opinion in this case.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 3 of 6
Petitioner received an intramuscular influenza vaccination in her left deltoid on
October 4, 2016. (Ex. 1.) Her prior medical history raised no concern of any shoulder or
musculoskeletal problems. (See, e.g. Ex. 5, pp. 2, 15.)
In her affidavit, petitioner described this vaccination as having “bled more than
normal.” (Ex. 13, p. 1.) She further stated that “[w]ithin a few hours of the shot, I started
to experience pain in my left shoulder which progressively became worse over the next
few days.” (Id.) She specifically recalled having difficulty sleeping the night after she
received her vaccination due to her left shoulder pain. (Id. at 2.) She further indicated
that her range of motion in her left shoulder was “severely compromised within 24 hours
after receiving the vaccination.” (Id. at 1.) She described difficulty lifting more than “a
few ounces” and that she had difficulty abducting her left arm. (Id. at 2.) She specifically
recalled having difficulty changing clothes, brushing her hair, and pushing open doors.
She also indicated that she had difficulty driving. (Id. at 1-2.)
Additionally, petitioner’s brother, Shahid Alaf Khan, averred that at the time of her
October 4, 2016 flu vaccine petitioner told him of her pain. (Ex. 14, p. 2.) Mr. Khan
recalls that on the day she received the vaccination, his sister experienced shoulder
pain within few hours and “immobility” by the following day. (Id.) Mr. Khan explains that
because his sister was a first-year medical student far from home, he stayed in touch
with her regularly out of concern for her well-being. (Id.) Mr. Khan recalls comforting
petitioner and reassuring her that her pain would probably subside in the a few days.
(Id.) When it did not, Mr. Khan describes several accommodations petitioner made to
continue her daily life in the weeks following her vaccination. (Id.)
On November 22, 2016, exactly seven weeks after her October 4 vaccination,
petitioner was seen at a student health center at Tulane University. (Ex. 7, p. 38.)
Petitioner’s chief complaint as recorded by the intake nurse was listed as “Trouble
raising her left arm and lifting things with left arm.” (Id.) A further comment from the
nurse intake indicated that it “[s]tarted after flu shot given, has gotten better but it’s still
there.” The nurse recorded a duration of symptoms as “2 months.” (Id.)
Petitioner’s physician recorded that petitioner “comes in today complaining of 2
months of recurrent left shoulder pain which she associates with the flu shot. She
received the injection in deltoid area and describes the pain as being localized in the
anterior shoulder area.” (Id. at 39.) Petitioner was diagnosed as having bicipital
tendinitis of the left shoulder. (Id.)
Petitioner returned to her physician for follow up on December 2, 2016. (Ex. 7 at
40-42.) Onset of her condition was not further discussed. She was referred to physical
therapy (Id. at 43.)
Petitioner presented for an initial evaluation by her physical therapist on
December 8, 2016, approximately nine weeks after her vaccination. (Ex. 3, p. 2.) At
that time, the physical therapy recorded onset of petitioner’s condition as
“approx.[imately] 2 months ago secondary to flu shot.” (Id.)
3

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 4 of 6
After pursuing a course of physical therapy, petitioner had an MRI study
completed on February 27, 2017. (Ex. 4, pp. 2-3.) At that time, petitioner’s history
indicated that “patient has been symptomatic since October 2016, no known trauma . .
.” (Id. at 2.)
Petitioner was subsequently seen by an orthopedist on March 10, 2017. (Ex. 6,
pp. 12-14.) The orthopedist recorded a history indicating that petitioner presented with
a chief complaint of pain “of insidious onset.” He further recorded that “she has had
shoulder pain since her flu shot in the left shoulder last fall. Since that time, she has had
weakness and pain in her shoulder . . . Other than her flu shot, she denies any history of
trauma. She has never had shoulder pain prior to this.” (Ex. 6, p. 12.)
Although petitioner continued treatment, the onset of her shoulder pain was not
revisited again until she returned to the Tulane student health center on February 19,
2018. (Ex. 10, pp. 47-49.) At that point, petitioner reportedly characterized her pain as
“chronic left sided shoulder pain for 1.5 y[ears].” (Id. at 48.)
Thereafter, petitioner continued to seek treatment of her ongoing shoulder injury.
On July 18, 2018, following a second MRI study, petitioner’s orthopedist opined that
“MR left shoulder shows a bursitis with some inflammation and a nodule consistent with
her history of the vaccine causing an inflammation in the shoulder.” (Ex. 11, p. 62.)
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. Burns v. HHS, 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. Cucuras v. HHS, 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. HHS, No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. HHS, 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
4

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 5 of 6
records since the records were not created contemporaneously with the onset of
petitioner's shoulder pain.”), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (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.
HHS, No. 90-1002V, 1991 WL 182241, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 30, 1991); see
also Eng v. HHS, 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
Significant to the issue presented herein, the Vaccine Act specifically instructs
that “[t]he special master or court may find the first symptom or manifestation of onset or
significant aggravation of an injury, disability, illness, condition, or death described in a
petition 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.” § 300aa-13(b)(2).
However, petitioner must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that the first
onset did occur within the specified time frame. § 300aa-13(b)(2). Indeed, petitioner has
the burden in all instances of demonstrating the facts necessary for entitlement to an
award by a “preponderance of the evidence.” § 300aa-12(a)(1)(A). Under that standard,
the existence of a fact must be shown to be “more probable than its nonexistence.” In
re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Here, the undersigned finds preponderant evidence that petitioner’s injury
occurred within forty-eight hours of her October 4, 2016 flu vaccination. Most notably,
petitioner’s medical records reflect that she explicitly and consistently associated her
injury with her flu vaccination to three different medical providers. (See Ex. 7, p. 38; Ex.
3, p. 2; Ex. 6, p. 12.) Moreover, this history is further supported by petitioner’s affidavit
which describes the immediate onset of petitioner’s condition in greater detail as well as
by her brother’s affidavit which likewise describes petitioner’s pain beginning the day of
vaccination. (Exs. 13, 14.)
Of course, medical records generally “warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528. Respondent contends, however, that these
medical records leave the onset of petitioner’s condition “unclear” and that they do not
provide preponderant evidence that petitioner’s condition occurred within forty-eight
hours of vaccination. (ECF No. 32, p. 5.) The undersigned disagrees.
The undersigned has previously observed in prior SIRVA cases that histories of
present illness reported by patients may include imprecise or generalized recollections
of onset that should not be overanalyzed where they are consistent with the appropriate
timeframe. See, e.g. Cooper v. HHS, No. 16-1387V, 2018 WL 1835179, n.13 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Jan. 18, 2018) (finding that although petitioner reported onset as a
5

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/11/19 Page 6 of 6
generalization, “[i]t is sufficient that, petitioner’s vaccination having occurred on October
30, the reported timeframe of early November reflected by the record as a whole does
encompass the 48 hour post-vaccination period.”). This is particularly so in a case such
as the instant case where petitioner’s treating physicians felt the history provided by
petitioner was sufficient to attribute her condition to the vaccination.
In this case it is clear throughout petitioner’s treatment history that her physicians
understood petitioner to be reporting that her shoulder pain began immediately after her
vaccination. Specifically, although petitioner first reported her pain as having begun two
months prior when, in fact, her vaccination had been only seven weeks prior, petitioner
did explicitly link or “associate” her shoulder pain to her vaccination. (Ex. 7, p. 39.)
Additionally, petitioner’s orthopedist later recorded a history indicating that petitioner
had shoulder pain “since” the time of her flu shot. (Ex. 6, p. 12.) These notations
suggest that the physicians understood the time or date of vaccination as marking the
reported onset of petitioner’s shoulder condition. Moreover, the orthopedist felt that
petitioner’s history was sufficient to opine that her shoulder injury was, in fact, vaccine-
caused.4 (Ex. 11, p. 62.)
Thus, taken as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner’s medical records
place the onset of petitioner’s shoulder injury within forty-eight hours of vaccination.
Upon the undersigned’s review, the contemporaneous treatment records reflect that her
treating physicians understood and recorded, consistent with petitioner’s sworn affidavit,
that her condition had an immediate onset following vaccination.
V. Conclusion
The undersigned finds that there is preponderant evidence in this case that
petitioner’s left shoulder pain, alleged by petitioner to be related to her October 4, 2016
influenza vaccination, did manifest within forty-eight hours of vaccination consistent with
the requirements for a SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and
Aids to Interpretation. 42. C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV) and (c)(10)(ii).
Accordingly, respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, August 12,
2019, an amended Rule 4 Report reflecting respondent’s position in light of the
above fact finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
4 The undersigned does not at this time reach the further question of whether this statement by
petitioner’s orthopedist in his treatment records is in itself sufficient to establish causation. Nonetheless,
the statement is probative regarding the orthopedist’s understanding of the nature of petitioner’s injury
and the history of onset provided by petitioner for treatment purposes.
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01831-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-10-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/23/2019) regarding 43 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 50 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1831V
Filed: August 23, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
AFSHIN KHAN,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On November 22, 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
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 4, 2016. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 19, 2019, respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
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. 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-01831-UNJ Document 50 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 2
4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “[i]n light of the Chief Special
Master’s fact ruling, and medical record evidence submitted in this case, [respondent]
has concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months”. 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-01831-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-02-13
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/13/2020) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (SW) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 58 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1831V
UNPUBLISHED
AFSHIN KHAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 13, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 22, 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
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 4, 2016. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 23, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her left shoulder injuries. On January 6, 2020, Respondent
filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be
awarded $81,013.87, representing $80,000.00 for Petitioner’s pain and suffering and
1 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). 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.
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-01831-UNJ Document 58 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 5
$1,013.87 for Petitioner’s unreimbursable expenses.3 Proffer at 2. In the Proffer,
Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on
the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the
Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $81,013.87, representing $80,000.00 for Petitioner’s pain and
suffering and $1,013.87 for Petitioner’s unreimbursable expenses in the form of a
check payable to Petitioner. 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 It appears these amounts are for Petitioner’s actual (past) pain and suffering and actual (past)
unreimbursable expenses, rather than any projected (future) amounts. However, the Proffer does not
provide these details but only the category of compensation. Proffer at 2. Additionally, while Respondent
agrees upon the amount of compensation set forth in the Proffer, he specifically reserves his right to seek
review of former Chief Special Master Dorsey’s ruling on entitlement issued on August 23, 2019. Id. at 1
n.1. (citation omitted).
4 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-01831-UNJ Document 58 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
AFSHIN KHAN, )
) No. 17-1831V
Petitioner, ) Chief Special Master
v. ) Nora Beth Dorsey
) SPU
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On August 19, 2019, respondent filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of
former Chief Special Master Dorsey’s fact ruling finding onset of petitioner’s alleged Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) within 48 hours of vaccination, and the
medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent would not defend the case on other grounds
during proceedings before the Office of Special Masters. Thereafter, on August 23, 2019, former
Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled
to vaccine compensation for her SIRVA.
I. Amount of Compensation
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$81,013.87.1 This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the
special master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties waive their
right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the former Chief Special Master’s August 23, 2019
entitlement decision.

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 58 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 5
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner be made through a
lump sum payment as described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s damages
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:2
(A) Petitioner’s Damages
A lump sum payment of $81,013.87 (comprised of $80,000.00 for pain and
suffering and $1,013.87 for unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check
payable to petitioner, Afshin Khan.
(B) Guardianship
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
GABRIELLE M. FIELDING
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, respondent reserves 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.

Case 1:17-vv-01831-UNJ Document 58 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 5
s/Althea Walker Davis
ALTHEA WALKER DAVIS
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-0515
DATED: January 6, 2020