VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961
Petitioner: Mara Corter
Filed: 2017-12-15
Decided: 2020-11-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-09-26
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 65552

AI-assisted case summary:
Mara Corter filed a petition for compensation on December 15, 2017, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 26, 2016. The respondent did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Ms. Corter's injury met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, including onset within 48 hours of vaccination and residual effects lasting over six months. A ruling on entitlement was issued on June 5, 2020, finding Ms. Corter entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on October 7, 2020, the respondent filed a proffer recommending an award of $65,552.58, comprising $65,000.00 for pain and suffering and $552.58 for past unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Corter, identified as a competent adult, agreed with the proffered award. On November 16, 2020, the court issued a decision awarding Ms. Corter the stipulated lump sum of $65,552.58.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-11-21
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/18/2019) regarding 45 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 48 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1961V
UNPUBLISHED
MARA CORTER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 18, 2019
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Summer Pope Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On December 15, 2017, Mara Corter 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 related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA) as a result of a flu vaccine administered on September 26, 2016.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
1 This ruling will be posted 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-01961-UNJ Document 48 Filed 11/21/19 Page 2 of 4
Specifically, Petitioner suffered symptoms manifested by pain immediately upon
vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed most of her medical records on December 28, 2017. See Exhibits
1-5. During the January 25, 2018 initial status conference, Respondent’s counsel
identified potential missing records that could relate to the onset of Petitioner’s alleged
SIRVA. On March 12, 2018, Petitioner submitted additional medical records and an
amended statement of completion. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. On September 7, 2018,
Respondent reported that he had reviewed the records filed by Petitioner and determined
that he had sufficient information to provide a recommendation. ECF No. 23. Respondent
also noted that he was interested in pursuing settlement negotiations. Id.
However, after several months of negotiation, on May 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a
status report stating that “after good-faith negotiations, the parties now agree that the
Chief Special Master will need to rule on Petitioner’s entitlement to vaccine compensation,
particularly as to onset of Petitioner’s injury.” ECF No. 35. Respondent subsequently filed
a Rule 4(c) Report on June 27, 2019. ECF No. 37. On that same date, Petitioner filed
additional medical records. ECF No. 38.
In a Scheduling Order filed July 17, 2019, former Chief Special Master Nora Beth
Dorsey (who was presiding over the case at the time) reported that she had reviewed the
record and determined that an onset hearing was not necessary. ECF No. 41. She also
noted that because this ruling relates to a discrete factual issue, party briefs were not
necessary. Id. The parties were allowed the opportunity to submit additional evidence
relevant to onset, and Petitioner was instructed to file a supplemental affidavit. Id.
Pursuant to the scheduling order, Petitioner subsequently submitted additional records
and a supplemental affidavit on September 26 and September 27, 2019. ECF Nos. 43-
44.
II. Issue
At issue is 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). Additionally, the Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA requires that a petitioner’s pain occur
within this same time frame, 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
2

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 48 Filed 11/21/19 Page 3 of 4
§ 11(c)(1). 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).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the findings in this ruling after a complete review of the record, including all
medical records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 Report, and additional evidence filed.
Specifically, I base the finding on the following evidence:
• Ms. Corter received an influenza vaccine in her left deltoid on September
26, 2016. Ex. 1; Ex. 2 at 2, 28.
• Petitioner did not have a history of left shoulder pain or injury. ECF No. 37.
• Petitioner reports that following the vaccination, her arm “became sore right
away.” Ex. 6. In her supplemental affidavit, Petitioner noted that her
shoulder “started to ache immediately with the injection itself.” Ex. 43.
• At a visit with her primary care physician (PCP) on November 8, 2016,
Petitioner complained of left shoulder pain “due to recent immunization
injection.” Ex. 2 at 64.
• On January 6, 2017, Petitioner reported to her PCP she had been having
local tenderness and persistent discomfort over the lateral left arm area
“after having had flu vaccination.” Ex. 2 at 109, 113. Physical examination
revealed tenderness over the lateral aspect of the left shoulder and the PCP
referred Petitioner to physical therapy. Id.
• Petitioner attended a physical therapy session on January 16, 2017, at
which time she reported that her arm had been sore “ever since” receiving
the flu vaccination on September 26, 2016. Ex. 3 at 3.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 48 Filed 11/21/19 Page 4 of 4
• On July 3, 2017, Petitioner presented to Dr. Michael Comstock, an
orthopedic surgeon, at which time she reported acute discomfort in the “left
shoulder upper arm region” after her September 26, 2016 flu vaccination.
Ex. 5 at 4. Dr. Comstock noted that “given the time course of her pain post-
injection, it is certainly possible that some of the injection reached the
subacromial/subdeltoid bursa.” Id. at 8.
• At a physical therapy visit on October 9, 2018, Petitioner reported left
shoulder pain “due to a flu shot 2 years ago.” Ex. 13 at 7.
• In an affidavit dated November 9, 2017, Petitioner reported that after her flu
shot on September 26, 2016, “[her] arm became very sore almost right
away.” Ex. 6 at 1.
• In a supplemental affidavit dated September 26, 2019, Petitioner reported
that after her flu vaccination on September 26, 2016, her left arm and
shoulder started to ache “immediately” and “within an hour, [it] was so sore
that it hurt to move [her] arm.” Ex. 17 at 1. She also reported that “over the
next couple days, the pain continued to get worse, not better.” Id.
• Maxwell Wlodarczak, Petitioner’s son, submitted a declaration dated
September 26, 2019, in which he reported a telephone conversation with
his mother where she complained pain and stiffness in her shoulder days
after receiving a flu shot. Ex. 18 at 1.
The affidavits of Petitioner and the declaration of her witness are consistent with
the medical evidence; therefore, I find the information contained therein credible. As such,
I find preponderant evidence that petitioner’s manifestation of onset after influenza
vaccine administration occurred within 48 hours of September 26, 2016.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, December 2,
2019, an amended Rule 4 Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the
above fact finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/21/2020) regarding 51 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1961V
UNPUBLISHED
MARA CORTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 21, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Summer Pope Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On December 15, 2017, Mara Corter 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 Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered
on September 26, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished fact 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 fact 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-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find that the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, Petitioner suffered symptoms
manifested by pain immediately upon vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed most of her medical records on December 28, 2017. See Exhibits
1-5. During the January 25, 2018 initial status conference, Respondent’s counsel
identified potential missing records that could relate to the onset of Petitioner’s alleged
SIRVA. On March 12, 2018, Petitioner submitted additional medical records and an
amended statement of completion. ECF 13 and ECF 14. On September 7, 2018,
Respondent reported that he had reviewed the records filed by Petitioner and determined
that he had sufficient information to provide a recommendation. ECF 23. Respondent also
noted that he was interested in pursuing settlement negotiations. Id.
However, after several months of negotiation, on May 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a
status report stating that “after good-faith negotiations, the parties now agree that the
Chief Special Master will need to rule on Petitioner’s entitlement to vaccine compensation,
particularly as to onset of Petitioner’s injury.” ECF 35. Respondent subsequently filed a
Rule 4(c) Report on June 27, 2019. ECF 37. On that same date, Petitioner filed additional
medical records. ECF 38.
In a Scheduling Order filed July 17, 2019, former Chief Special Master Dorsey
(who was presiding over the case at the time) reported that she had reviewed the record
and determined that an onset hearing was not necessary. ECF 41. She also noted that
because the ruling related to a discrete factual issue, party briefs were not necessary. Id.
The parties were allowed the opportunity to submit additional evidence relevant to onset,
and Petitioner was instructed to file a supplemental affidavit. Id. Pursuant to the
scheduling order, Petitioner subsequently submitted additional records and a
supplemental affidavit on September 26 and September 27, 2019. ECF 43 and ECF 44.
On October 18, 2019, I issued a ruling finding that the onset of Petitioner’s pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF 45. Respondent subsequently filed a
“Motion For Further Explanation Of Records That Are Contrary To Fact Finding.” ECF 46.
In it, Respondent argued that I had not given proper weight to Petitioner’s failure to report
shoulder pain during two phone calls to her primary care physician (PCP) and a visit to
the emergency room (ER) on September 28, 2016. Id. at 3. Respondent also stated that
the ruling failed to address the inconsistencies between Petitioner’s affidavits and her
medical records. Id. at 4. Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s motion on November 20,
2019. ECF 47. Therefore, this issue is ripe for adjudication.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 7
II. Question for Resolution
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii)
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 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.
§ 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.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this
rule does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual
3

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 7
offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.” § 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.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
Even in light of re-review of the existing record, as well as the particular documents
referenced in Respondent’s motion, I again conclude that the evidence preponderantly
supports the conclusion that the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of
receipt of the flu vaccine. Specifically, I base my finding on the following evidence:
• Ms. Corter received an influenza vaccine in her left deltoid on September
26, 2016. Ex. 1; Ex. 2 at 2, 28.
• Petitioner did not have a history of left shoulder pain or injury. ECF No. 37.
• Petitioner reports that following the vaccination, her arm “became sore right
away.” Ex. 6. In her supplemental affidavit, Petitioner noted that her
shoulder “started to ache immediately with the injection itself.” Ex. 43.
• At a visit with her primary care physician (PCP) on November 8, 2016
(approximately six weeks post-vaccination), Petitioner complained of left
shoulder pain “due to recent immunization injection.” Ex. 2 at 64.
• On January 6, 2017 (more than three months after vaccine administration),
Petitioner reported to her PCP she had been having local tenderness and
persistent discomfort over the lateral left arm area “after having had flu
vaccination.” Ex. 2 at 109, 113. Physical examination revealed tenderness
over the lateral aspect of the left shoulder and the PCP referred Petitioner
to physical therapy. Id.
4

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 7
• Petitioner attended a physical therapy session on January 16, 2017, at
which time she reported that her arm had been sore “ever since” receiving
the flu vaccination on September 26, 2016. Ex. 3 at 3.
• On July 3, 2017, Petitioner presented to Dr. Michael Comstock, an
orthopedic surgeon, at which time she reported acute discomfort in the “left
shoulder upper arm region” after her September 26, 2016 flu vaccination.
Ex. 5 at 4. Dr. Comstock noted that “given the time course of her pain post-
injection, it is certainly possible that some of the injection reached the
subacromial/subdeltoid bursa.” Id. at 8.
• At a physical therapy visit on October 9, 2018, Petitioner reported left
shoulder pain “due to a flu shot 2 years ago.” Ex. 13 at 7.
• In an affidavit dated November 9, 2017, Petitioner reported that after her flu
shot on September 26, 2016, “[her] arm became very sore almost right
away.” Ex. 6 at 1.
• In a supplemental affidavit dated September 26, 2019, Petitioner reported
that after her flu vaccination on September 26, 2016, her left arm and
shoulder started to ache “immediately” and “within an hour, [it] was so sore
that it hurt to move [her] arm.” Ex. 17 at 1. She also reported that “over the
next couple days, the pain continued to get worse, not better.” Id.
• Maxwell Wlodarczak, Petitioner’s son, submitted a declaration dated
September 26, 2019, in which he reported a telephone conversation with
his mother where she complained pain and stiffness in her shoulder days
after receiving a flu shot. Ex. 18 at 1.
The above facts would seem to preponderantly support the conclusion that
Petitioner’s onset likely began around the time of vaccination, i.e., within 48 hours of
administration. However, Respondent’s motion maintains that other evidence undermines
this conclusion, because it reveals instances in which Petitioner did not complain of
shoulder pain. Specifically, as noted above, Respondent references Petitioner’s two
phone calls to her PCP, during which she spoke with a nurse, and one visit to the ER.
ECF 46. Respondent argues that because these pieces of evidence are the most
contemporaneous records to the date of vaccination, they “are particularly relevant and
should, at a minimum, be acknowledged in the Fact Findings.” Id.
The medical records referenced by Respondent show that two days after
vaccination (September 28, 2016), Petitioner called her PCP and reported that she had
received a flu shot two days earlier and had begun experiencing abdominal cramps and
bloody diarrhea as of that morning. Ex. 2 at 53. She was advised to go to the ER, where
she was diagnosed with acute diverticulitis. Ex. 10. On October 6, 2016, Petitioner again
called her PCP and inquired as to whether she should take an iron supplement given her
vegetarianism. Ex. 2 at 58. Complaints of shoulder pain were not noted in the records
from either phone call or her ER visit. Respondent objects to the failure to address these
5

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 7
records because of their alleged inconsistencies with Petitioner’s affidavits, and thus
suggests they should have been given greater weight in my earlier fact ruling.
The Vaccine Act states that “[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.” Section 13(b)(2). Furthermore, the absence of a reference to a condition
or circumstance is much less significant than a reference which negates the existence of
the condition or circumstance. Since medical records typically record only a fraction of all
that occurs, the fact that reference to an event is omitted from the medical records may
not be very significant. Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733
(1991), aff’d, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. Murphy v. Sullivan,
113 S. Ct. 263 (1992).
Respondent’s broad assertion that these particular records reveal a significant
inconsistency relating to the issue of onset is overstated. During both phone calls to her
PCP, Petitioner was focused on discrete issues unrelated to shoulder pain (i.e., her
gastrointestinal complaints and vitamin supplements). As noted above, medical records
typically record only a fraction of the total discussion; therefore, it would be expected that
a nursing note would usually reflect only the primary reason for Petitioner’s calls.
Similarly, it is likely that Petitioner’s hospital records focused on her diverticulitis, an
emergent issue, rather than any ancillary complaints.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the other, subsequent medical records in the
file consistently show that Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain began immediately
after vaccination. She linked her shoulder pain to the vaccination at visits with PCP on
multiple occasions not too long after the vaccine’s administration. See, e.g., Ex 2. During
physical therapy, she reported that her left arm had been sore “ever since” the vaccination
on September 26, 2016. Ex 3. Further, at a visit with an orthopedic surgeon, Petitioner
also reported acute discomfort in her left shoulder the day of her vaccination. Ex 5.
Petitioner’s affidavits are therefore largely consistent with the medical records
reflecting that her pain began immediately after the injection. Exs. 6 and 17. Further, the
affidavits of Petitioner’s son and sister both temporally relate the onset of Petitioner’s pain
to her flu vaccination. Exs. 18 and 19. Petitioner also addressed the two records cited by
Respondent in her supplemental affidavit. Ex. 17. She explained that she did mention the
pain in her arm to the nurses during each phone call, she was calling to discuss other
medical conditions, and she was reassured each time that pain after injection was normal
and it would go away. Id.
It is within my discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, and I am obligated to fully consider all relevant and reliable
evidence in the record. La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204; Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Petitioner consistently related the
onset of her shoulder pain contemporaneously with her vaccination during in-person visits
with physicians and physical therapists. These reports are also consistent with
Petitioner’s affidavits where she clearly links the vaccination with the immediate onset of
her shoulder pain. Accordingly, I do not find that the records emphasized by Respondent
substantially cast my prior ruling in doubt.
6

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 7
In so finding, I credit the substantive nature of Respondent’s objections in light of
the items of evidence referenced in his motion. SPU SIRVA cases frequently present
records that do not memorialize a complaint of shoulder pain at the immediate time of the
vaccination, or even contemporaneously close thereafter, leading to onset disputes. In a
case like this one, where the post-vaccination medical history of somewhat stuttering, and
where the first formal record of vaccination-related pain was made several weeks to a
month after receipt of the vaccine, it is reasonable for Respondent to question the strength
of the onset showing – and this is only amplified by the intervening, closer-in-time records
that do not corroborate Petitioner’s assertions regarding the commencement of her pain.
Not every case in which a Petitioner fails to seek immediate treatment for SIRVA
pain, but instead relies on complaints long after the fact, should be deemed to satisfy this
Table element. However, in this case Petitioner was able to offer credible explanations
for contrary records, and enough other corroborative evidence, to meet this requirement.
At most, the case was close on this issue – and the law instructs me in close cases to
give the benefit of the doubt, from an evidentiary standard, to Petitioner. See Knudsen v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Althen v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
V. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, June 5, 2020, an
amended Rule 4 Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the above fact
finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/05/2020) regarding 54 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 56 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1961V
UNPUBLISHED
MARA CORTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 5, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Summer Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 15, 2017, Mara Corter 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 Injury (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 26, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 3, 2020, 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.
ECF 53 at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “DICP will not continue to contest that
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-01961-UNJ Document 56 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 2
petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 9. Specifically,
Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder;
the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination;
the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no
other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s left shoulder
pain. Id. Respondent further agrees that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01961-3
Date issued/filed: 2020-11-16
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/15/2020) regarding 61 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 66 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1961V
UNPUBLISHED
MARA CORTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 15, 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)
Summer Pope Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 15, 2017, Mara Corter 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 Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) resulting from the adverse effects of an influenza
vaccination she received on September 26, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 5, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a left SIRVA. On October 7, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $65,552.58. Proffer
at 2. Specifically, Respondent proffers that Petitioner should be awarded $65,000.00 in
1 Because this unpublished decision 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 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, 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-01961-UNJ Document 66 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 5
actual and projected pain and suffering3 and $552.58 in past unreimbursable expenses.
Id. at 1-2. Respondent also represents 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 $65,552.58 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 This amount reflects that the award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present
value. ECF 60 at 2.
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-01961-UNJ Document 66 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
MARA CORTER, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 17-1961V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On April 21, 2020, the Chief Special Master issued Findings of Fact that “the onset of
Petitioner’s SIRVA occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.” ECF No 51 at 2. On June 3,
2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine
Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact that
the onset of petitioner’s left arm pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and the medical
evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 53 at 2-3, 9. Thereafter, on
June 5, 2020, Chief Special Master Corcoran entered a Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner,
Mara Corter, entitled to Vaccine Act compensation for her Table SIRVA injury. ECF No. 54.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent now proffers that, based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision
and the evidence of record, Mara Corter should be awarded $65,000.00 in actual and projected

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 66 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 5
pain and suffering. This amount reflects that the 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 Mara Corter’s expenditure of past
unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent now proffers that,
based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision and the evidence of record, petitioner
should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $552.58, as provided under
the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.1
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to Mara Corter should be made through
a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision
and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $65,552.58,
representing compensation for pain and suffering ($65,000.00), and past unreimbursable
expenses ($552.58), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Mara Corter.
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the
Chief 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 Chief Special Master’s June 5, 2020
entitlement decision.
2 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

Case 1:17-vv-01961-UNJ Document 66 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 5
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Mara Corter: $65,552.58
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
Acting 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/ Sarah C. Duncan
SARAH C. DUNCAN
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) 514-9729
Fax: (202) 616-4310
DATED: October 7, 2020
3