VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01964
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01964
Petitioner: Alexandra Morrow
Filed: 2017-12-18
Decided: 2021-07-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-01-24
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 40000

AI-assisted case summary:
Alexandra Morrow filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 18, 2017, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on January 24, 2017. She claimed the vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered residual effects for more than six months, and had no prior award or settlement for her condition. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused her injury. Despite this denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on June 29, 2021, agreeing to settle the case and award compensation. The Chief Special Master adopted the stipulation as the decision, awarding Alexandra Morrow a lump sum of $40,000.00. This amount represents compensation for all damages available under the program. The stipulation also addressed future proceedings for attorneys' fees and costs. The case was resolved through a settlement, with the award covering all claimed damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01964-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-06
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/02/2020) regarding 49 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1964V
UNPUBLISHED
ALEXANDRA MORROW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 2, 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)
Martin James Martinez, Martinez Law Office, Napa, CA, for Petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On December 18, 2017, Alexandra Morrow 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on
January 24, 2017. 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 5
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA began
within the temporal requirements of the Table claim, because Petitioner suffered pain the
same day as her vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On September 3, 2019, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that
compensation be denied in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (“Respondent’s
Report”) ECF No. 44. Respondent’s position was based in part on his conclusion that
there is not preponderant evidence that onset of Petitioner’s pain was within 48 hours of
vaccination. Id. at 4. Respondent also argued that there may be additional explanations
for Petitioner’s left shoulder pain, such as degenerative changes to her shoulder and
employment-related activities. Id. at 5.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) arguing that there is
preponderant evidence that she suffered a shoulder injury within 48 hours of the
vaccination. ECF No. 48. Petitioner also moved for a ruling on entitlement in her favor.
Mot. at 27. Respondent did not file a response.
II. Issue
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) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 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
2

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 5
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 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.” Section 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
I make the findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, Respondent’s Report, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
base the findings on the following evidence:
3

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 5
• On January 24, 2017, Ms. Morrow received the flu vaccine in her left
shoulder. Ex. 19 at 17.3
• On February 21, 2017, Petitioner reported pain in her left shoulder that
began after receiving vaccinations on January 24, 2017. Ex. 19 at 6-7.
During that visit, Petitioner indicated that her pain started “a few days after
[the vaccinations on January 24, 2017] and has become progressively
worse.” Ex. 19 at 7-8.
• Petitioner repeatedly attributed her pain to vaccinations received on
January 24, 2017, and repeatedly reported the pain began “a few days after
and has become progressively worse.” See Ex. 19 at 8 (record from March
14, 2017 reporting left shoulder pain after receiving vaccines on January
24, 2017); Ex. 19 at 10 (record from May 17, 2017 reporting left shoulder
pain after receiving vaccines on January 24, 2017).
• Petitioner underwent an MRI of her left shoulder on May 30, 2017, due to
“[l]eft shoulder pain since February, 2017, post flu shot[].” Ex. 15 at 1.
• On June 30, 2017, Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain began after
receiving two vaccinations approximately five months earlier. Ex. 24 at 1.
Petitioner also stated that she developed soreness in her shoulder the night
she received the flu vaccine, and that she woke the following day with
limited mobility. Ex. 24 at 1.
The above medical entries collectively establish that Petitioner’s shoulder pain most likely
began within hours of receiving the January 24, 2017 flu vaccine, and progressively
increased thereafter.
I recognize that some of Ms. Morrow’s records are unclear, or indicate the onset
of her shoulder pain may have occurred later than 48 hours after the vaccine. Specifically,
as Respondent notes in his Rule 4 Report, at times Petitioner reported that her pain began
“a few days after” receiving the vaccines. Ex. 19 at 7-8. Further, some records indicate
that her pain began in February, more than one week after her flu vaccine. See Ex. 6 at
1-5 (record stating her left shoulder pain began February 1, 2017). However, while every
record may not be consistent, when the evidence is viewed in its entirety it preponderantly
establishes that Petitioner’s likely pain began within 24 hours of her vaccination.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish that the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred the same day as her January 24, 2017 vaccination – and thus
within the 48-hour timeframe for a Table SIRVA claim.
At this time, I decline to rule on entitlement to allow the parties an opportunity to
discuss how they would like to proceed in this case, and to determine whether settlement
negotiations would be productive.
3 Petitioner also received a Pneumococcal polyvalent vaccination Pneumovax®23 in her left shoulder at
that time.
4

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 5
V. Scheduling Order
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: Respondent shall file, by no later than
Friday, July 03, 2020, a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in this
case. At a minimum, the status report shall indicate whether Respondent is willing to
engage in tentative discussions regarding settlement or proffer or is opposed to
negotiating at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01964-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-07-29
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/29/2021) regarding 69 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1964V
UNPUBLISHED
ALEXANDRA MORROW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 29, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Michael Avrim Firestone, Marvin Firestone, MD, JD and Associates, San Mateo, CA, for
petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On December 18, 2017, Alexandra Morrow 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
January 24, 2017. Petition at 1-4; Stipulation, filed at June 29, 2021, ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner
further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she
suffered the residual effects of the SIRVA or more than six months, and that there has
been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result
of her condition. Petition at 1-4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that Petitioner’s
alleged left shoulder injury or any other injury or condition was caused by her receipt of
the flu vaccine. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
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-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on June 29, 2021, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $40,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed
to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ALEXANDRA MORROW, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 17-1964V
) Chief Special Master
V. ) Brian H. Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
I. Alexandra Morrow, petitioner, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq. (the "Vaccine
Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries related to petitioner's receipt of the
influenza ("flu") vaccine, 1 which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"),
42 C.F.R. § I 00.3(a).
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccination on January 24, 2017.
3-. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she sustained a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA), as the result of her flu vaccination, and further alleges that she suffered
the residual effects of this alleged injury for more than six months.
1 Petitioner also asserts that she suffered a vaccine-related injury as the result of the receipt of a
pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (i.e., Pneumovax 23). Petition at I, 2. However, the
pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is not covered under the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XII) (Vaccine Injury Table, noting coverage for
pneumococcal conjugate vaccines).

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 4 of 7
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civi I action
for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.
6. Respondent denies that petitioner's alleged left shoulder injury or any other injury or
condition, was caused by her receipt of the flu vaccine.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with
the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(I), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of $40,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after
petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(I), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before
the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this
petition.
I 0. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
2

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 5 of 7
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §
1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
I I. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to
paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject
to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award
for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided
pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a
strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-I 5(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in her
individual capacity, and on behalf of her heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the Cou1t of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on or around January 24,
2017, as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about December
18, 2017, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 17-1964 V.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 6 of 7
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal paims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete confo1mity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the pa1ties' respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and futther, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to develop a
shoulder injury or any other injury or condition.
18. All rights and obligations of peti~ioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
I
I
I
4

Case 1:17-vv-01964-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/21 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
G.9-ti.~~
ALEXANDRA MORROW
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~~ ~~.AY:--:P<'~
HEATI-IER L. PEARLMAN
1700 South El Camino Real Aeling Deputy Director
Suite408 Torts Branch
San Mateo, CA 94402 Civil Division
'( 650) 212-4900 U.S. Department of Justice
Michael@LawMDJD.com P. 0. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH A.l'\JD RESPONDENT:
HUMAN SERVICES:
fn~c~ l).b.Q.IULA lJN~
tf~
z:;~ ~, ot(Sc-, tnS, A/Jh.J, 'ovt ~~ L-Pta ✓I~
TAMARA OVERBY ALTHEA WALKER DAVIS
Acting Director, Division of Injury Senior Trial Counsel
Compensation Programs Torts Branch
Healthcare Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice·
Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station
and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146
5600 Fishers Lane, 08N 146B (202) 616-0515
Rockville, MD 20857 Althea.Davis@usdoj.gov
k1 Jzoz.,
Dated: Ob J
5