VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00044
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00044
Petitioner: Lori Carre
Filed: 2018-01-08
Decided: 2020-09-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-05
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 53000

AI-assisted case summary:
Lori Carre filed a petition on January 8, 2018, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she received an influenza vaccine on October 5, 2015, and subsequently suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that Ms. Carre sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the flu vaccine caused her condition. However, both parties agreed to settle the case. The Special Master reviewed the file and adopted the parties' stipulation as its decision. The stipulation awarded Ms. Carre a lump sum of $53,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The decision was entered on September 24, 2020. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Petitioner was represented by Isaiah Kalinowski of Maglio Christopher and Toale, P.A., and Respondent was represented by Emilie Williams of the U.S. Department of Justice. Special Master Katherine E. Oler issued the decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Lori Carre alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2015, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury and that the vaccine caused the condition. The case was settled via stipulation, with the Special Master adopting the parties' agreement. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $53,000.00 for all damages. The theory of causation was based on the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA. No specific medical experts or detailed causation mechanisms were described in the public decision. The decision was issued by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on September 24, 2020. Petitioner's counsel was Isaiah Kalinowski, and Respondent's counsel was Emilie Williams.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00044-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-03-09
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 1/14/2020) regarding 39 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-44V
Filed: January 14, 2020
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
LORI CARRE, *
*
Petitioner, * Findings of Fact; Onset;
* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
v. * Administration (“SIRVA”).
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington DC, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ONSET1
Oler, Special Master:
On January 8, 2018, Lori Carre (“Ms. Carre” or “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” or “Program”). The petition alleges that the influenza (“flu”)
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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. However, the parties
may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under
Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be
available to the public. Id.
2 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).
1

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 9
vaccination Ms. Carre received on October 5, 2015 caused her to suffer from Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). Pet. at 1.
During the pendency of this matter, Petitioner submitted one affidavit that she authored,
along with affidavits prepared by her husband, and a work associate, as well as other documentary
evidence.
I held a hearing on December 10, 2019 in Washington, DC, to determine the date of onset
of Petitioner’s shoulder pain. Mr. Isaiah Kalinowski appeared on behalf of Petitioner and Ms.
Emilie Williams appeared on behalf of Respondent. I heard testimony from Petitioner and her
husband.
After carefully considering the testimony of the witnesses, the medical records, affidavits,
and documentary evidence, I find that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began the day of her
vaccination.
I. Procedural History
On January 8, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition alleging that she suffered from SIRVA as a
result of a flu vaccine administered on October 5, 2015. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed medical
records on January 22, 2018. Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On this same date, Petitioner filed email
correspondence between Renee DeMarzio and David Wrzesniewski. Petitioner also filed her
affidavit along with an affidavit from Renee DeMarzio. Exs. 8, 9. She filed additional medical
records on April 12, 2018 and July 31, 2018. Exs. 12, 13.
On December 14, 2018, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 23. Respondent
stated that Petitioner has not demonstrated that she suffered from a SIRVA Table claim, and further
has not provided evidence that satisfies her burden of proof under Althen v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Resp’s Rept. at 8-10.
I held a status conference with the parties on February 14, 2019. See ECF No. 26. During
the status conference, I informed the parties that I found the evidence submitted by Petitioner, in
particular the affidavit and email correspondence from Ms. DeMarzio to be compelling. I asked
Respondent’s counsel whether an onset hearing would assist in moving the case forward. I
specifically informed counsel that “I hesitate [to conduct an onset hearing] if the outcome will not
alter Respondent’s position.” ECF No. 26. Counsel for Respondent informed me that she would
provide my initial assessment of the case to her client and inquire whether an onset determination
would assist in resolving the case.
On March 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report. ECF No. 27. In this report,
Respondent indicated that “he would find an onset determination valuable in encouraging possible
settlement negotiations.” ECF No. 27.
On June 6, 2019, Petitioner filed additional medical records. Ex. 14. She also filed a
supplemental affidavit from Renee DeMarzio. Ex. 15.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 9
I conducted a fact hearing on December 10, 2019 in Washington, DC. The matter is now
ripe for adjudication.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner was born in 1971. She was 44 years old on October 5, 2015, when she received
the allegedly causal flu vaccination in her left deltoid at Giant Pharmacy. Ex. 1 at 2. Prior to her
vaccination, Petitioner had a history of thyroid cancer. Ex. 5 at 2.
Petitioner went to PMA Medical Specialists on February 8, 2016 for thyroid problems. Ex.
5 at 11. There is no indication in the record that Petitioner mentioned shoulder pain during this
visit.
Petitioner next sought medical treatment on June 17, 2016. She complained of pain in the
left upper arm which began “8 months ago.” Ex. 5 at 14. This record also indicated that the “pain
started 11/2015 after a flu shot.” Id. The notes from this visit state that several co-workers also
have similar symptoms. Id. Petitioner was scheduled for an MRI. Id. at 15.
Petitioner had an MRI on July 7, 2016. Ex. 3 at 6. The impression is listed as:
Minor edema involving the left deltoid muscle. No overt disruption of fibers. This
could be sequela of prior trauma. This could be related to minor strain or
nonspecific myositis[.] Extremely subtle, minor muscular edema involving the
brachioradialis muscle. Similar differential considerations[.] Mild degenerative
change shoulder.
Id. at 6-7.
On July 20, 2016, Petitioner visited Dr. Louis Simonetti at PMA Medical Specialists for
left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 16. These records indicate that her left shoulder pain began nine
months ago after her flu shot, and that she has pain with movement of her left shoulder. Id. Dr.
Simonetti assessed Petitioner with sprain of other part of left shoulder region “[a]cute-secondary
to flu shot.” Id. at 18.
On August 2, 2016, Petitioner visited Dr. John Pell at Rothman Institute. Ex. 6 at 9. The
history of present illness section of the record states that Petitioner “has difficulty with her left arm
in the area of her deltoid insertion. It started after she had a flu injection in this spot.” Id. Dr. Pell
assessed Petitioner with bursitis of the left shoulder and myopathy of the left arm secondary to flu
injection. Id.
Petitioner attended her first physical therapy session at ATI Physical Therapy on August
11, 2016. Ex. 2 at 2. She attended a total of 10 visits before being discharged on September 6,
2016. Id.
On August 16, 2016, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Pell and indicated that her arm pain
had not improved since beginning physical therapy. Ex. 6 at 7. She was assessed with bursitis of
3

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 9
the left shoulder and was told to follow up in four weeks. Id.
Petitioner underwent an MRI of her left shoulder on September 8, 2016. Ex. 6 at 14. The
impression from this imaging is listed as “Supraspinatus tendinosis[;] SLAP tear with extension
into posterior labrum[;] Possible synovitis at axillary pouch.” Id. at 15.
Petitioner followed up with Dr. Pell on September 13, 2016 complaining of persistent left
shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 4. Dr. Pell states in this record that
The internal derangement of her left shoulder is not caused by her flu shot, but may
have been exacerbated by it. I think that most of her discomfort persistent from her
flu shot may well be related to inflammation of the deltoid and the brachioradialis.
Id.
Petitioner visited Dr. Pell on April 24, 2018 for left shoulder pain. Ex. 13 at 2. The record
indicates that “she had previously had a flu shot which caused her a great deal of shoulder pain
and her pain has persisted since the time of her flu shot.” Id.
III. The Petition, Affidavits, and Documentary Evidence
The Petition filed in this matter states that Petitioner experienced a SIRVA following her
October 5, 2015 flu vaccination. Petition at 1-3.
A. Affidavits
1. Affidavit of Ms. Lori Carre
In support of her Petition, Ms. Carre signed her affidavit on January 12, 2018. In it, she
states that she received her flu vaccination on October 5, 2015 at the Giant Pharmacy in Audubon,
Pennsylvania. Ex. 8 at 1. Petitioner states she felt pain “from the moment of injection.” Id.
According to Ms. Carre, she did not think much of the pain at the time, because she knew
vaccinations could be painful. Id.
Over the next few weeks, Petitioner’s pain did not dissipate. Ex. 8 at 1. At that time, she
states that she discussed her continuing pain with Renee DeMarzio, her coworker and employer’s
benefits coordinator. Id. at 2. According to Petitioner, Ms. DeMarzio also experienced similar
pain after her vaccination. Id.
By December 2015, Petitioner, along with two of her coworkers, had all experienced
shoulder pain after vaccination. Ex. 8 at 2. One of these coworkers went to the doctor and learned
that the injection had likely been placed too high in the arm, but that there was no treatment that
would address the pain. Id. According to Petitioner, when she learned that there was no way to
help with the pain, she decided there was “not much reason for me to seek medical attention for
my shoulder injury.” Id. Petitioner decided to rest her arm and wait for it to resolve on its own.
Id.
4

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 9
Petitioner states that Ms. DeMarzio communicated with the manager of the Giant
Pharmacy and let him know that there were four employees who experienced pain after receiving
a flu vaccination. Ex. 8 at 3. The pharmacy manager recommended that Ms. DeMarzio contact
David Wrzesniewski. Id. Mr. Wrzesniewski suggested that the four who experienced pain after
flu vaccine should file a VAERS report. Id. Petitioner states that she filed her form in December
2015 or January 2016. Id.
In June of 2016, Petitioner spoke with Marion Fisher “a representative from Giant
Pharmacy’s risk management firm.” Ex. 8 at 4. According to Petitioner, Ms. Fisher recommended
that Petitioner have an MRI. Id. After that conversation, Petitioner began to visit medical
professionals to treat her shoulder pain. Id.
Petitioner states that she still experiences pain from her shoulder injury. Ex. 8 at 4.
2. Affidavit of Ms. Renee DeMarzio
Ms. DeMarzio is the benefits coordinator at Globus Medical, where Petitioner is an
employee. Ex. 9 at 1. Ms. DeMarzio set up the annual flu vaccinations for the company’s
employees. Id. The majority of employees received their flu vaccines on one of two dates. Id.
However, Petitioner was not available on either of the dates that Ms. DeMarzio had arranged, so
Petitioner received a voucher that enabled her to go to Giant to receive her flu vaccine. Id. at 2.
A couple of weeks after both she and Petitioner received their flu shots, Petitioner told Ms.
DeMarzio about her left arm pain that was so intense that it made Petitioner think she was having
a heart attack. Ex. 9 at 2. Ms. DeMarzio states that three days after this conversation, she also felt
this same type of pain that Petitioner had described. Id.
One day in December, another employee came to Ms. DeMarzio and mentioned persistent
pain since the flu vaccine. Ex. 9 at 2. This employee went to the doctor, and the doctor told her it
was probably a result of improper administration of the vaccine. Id. Ms. DeMarzio discussed this
other employee with Petitioner, and they “all came to realize that [they] had all received [their]
vaccinations from that pharmacist Lauren.” Id.
After making this realization, Ms. DeMarzio spoke with a manager of the Giant Pharmacy.
Ex. 9 at 2. The manager asked her to contact David Wrzesniewski, who recommended they each
file a VAERS report. Id. Each affected employee completed the VAERS form, and Ms. DeMarzio
submitted the completed forms. Id. One day after submitting these forms, another employee came
to Ms. DeMarzio complaining of persistent pain that began after his flu shot. Id.
3. Affidavit of Mr. Kevin Carre
Mr. Carre is Petitioner’s husband. Ex. 10 at 1. He recalls that Petitioner complained about
pain associated with her flu shot “in the days and weeks immediately following….” Id. When the
pain got worse over time, it became worrisome for them. Id.
5

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 6 of 9
According to Mr. Carre, Petitioner contacted a representative at Giant to discuss the matter.
Ex. 10 at 1. Petitioner told Mr. Carre that some of her coworkers had also experienced similar
pain after their flu shots. Id.
4. Supplemental Affidavit of Renee DeMarzio
Ms. DeMarzio completed her supplemental affidavit on June 6, 2019. In that document,
she states that she remembers the initial conversation she had with Petitioner about shoulder pain.
Ex. 15 at 1. They were walking down the hallway and Petitioner mentioned to her that “she thought
she was having a heart attack the night before because she had such pain in her left arm.” Id. She
does not recall the specific date of this conversation. Id. at 2. Further, Ms. DeMarzio does not
recall whether Petitioner discussed when this pain began. Id.
Ms. DeMarzio states that there were four employees (her, Petitioner, and two others) who
experienced shoulder pain after vaccination. Ex. 15 at 2.
B. Documentary Evidence
Petitioner filed email correspondence between Renee DeMarzio and David Wrzesniewski.
Ex. 7. The email string began in December 2015 when Ms. DeMarzio emailed Mr. Wrzesniewski
informing him that some employees were still experiencing pain after their flu shots. Ex. 7 at 4.
Petitioner also filed the VAERS form she completed concerning her shoulder pain after her
October 5, 2015 flu shot. Ex. 12.
C. Testimony at the Hearing
1. Testimony of Kevin Carre
Petitioner’s husband, Kevin Carre testified briefly at the hearing. He testified that after
Petitioner received her flu shot in October of 2015, she complained of normal pain associated with
vaccination. Tr. at 8. A couple of days after her vaccination, Petitioner began to describe increased
pain, which included pain that radiated down her arm. Id. at 5.
As time went on, Petitioner’s pain increased. Tr. at 8. Her shoulder pain prevented her
from engaging in daily activities without experiencing pain. Id. at 6. For example, Petitioner had
problems getting dressed and had difficulty sleeping. Id.
2. Testimony of Petitioner
Petitioner testified that before her vaccination, she had never injured her shoulder. Tr. at
11-12. On October 5, 2015, Petitioner received her flu vaccination in her left shoulder at Giant
Pharmacy. Id. at 13. The pharmacist injected her at the mid-point between her shoulder and her
elbow. Id. at 14. Petitioner testified that she experienced pain associated with the shot the same
day that she received it, but thought it was normal vaccination pain. Id. at 15, 16.
6

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 7 of 9
As time went on, Petitioner testified that she experienced a progression of symptoms. Tr.
at 16. Within one week of vaccination, Petitioner was unable to sleep on her stomach without
pain. Id. at 17. She had a hard time carrying things, and had difficulty reaching over her head.
Id. at 18. Petitioner described her pain as constant but explained there were times when it increased
in intensity. Id. at 19. One night, the pain in her arm woke her from sleep. The pain was so
intense, Petitioner thought she might be having a heart attack. Id. at 20, 21. This incident took
place in the beginning of November. Id. at 21.
Soon after this painful incident, Petitioner spoke with Renee DeMarzio, her coworker and
her company’s benefits coordinator. Tr. at 21-22. Petitioner told Ms. DeMarzio about
experiencing such extreme arm pain that she thought she was having a heart attack. Id. Ms.
DeMarzio told Petitioner that there were other coworkers who also still felt pain after their flu
shots. Id. at 22. According to Petitioner, Ms. DeMarzio reached out to the pharmacy, who
recommended individuals still experiencing pain from vaccination complete VAERS forms. Id.
at 23-24. Petitioner testified that she completed her VAERS form either in late December or in
January. Id. at 24, 25-26. To the best of her knowledge, she believes she completed the form in
late December 2015. Id. at 24.
Petitioner attended a medical appointment in February 2016 with Dr. Ali. Tr. at 26. Dr.
Ali is her endocrinologist. Id. Because of this, Petitioner did not mention her symptoms of
shoulder pain at this appointment. Id.
Petitioner first learned that vaccines could cause the type of pain that she experienced when
she did an internet search soon after her first MRI, in July 2016. Tr. at 33-34. She did not know
of SIRVA or the Vaccine Program when she received her vaccination. Id. at 34.
IV. Legal Standards Regarding Fact Finding
Petitioner bears the burden of establishing her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(1)(a). A petitioner must offer evidence that leads the “trier of fact to believe
that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he or she] may find in
favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
In order to make a determination concerning factual issues, such as the timing of onset of
petitioner’s alleged injury, the special master should first look to the medical records. “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.”
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Lowrie v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-1585V, 2006 WL 3734216, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 29, 2006). Medical records created contemporaneously with the events they describe are
presumed to be accurate and complete. Doe/70 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 95 Fed. Cl.
598, 608 (2010).
7

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 8 of 9
Contemporaneous medical records generally merit greater evidentiary weight than oral
testimony; this is particularly true where such testimony conflicts with the record evidence.
Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; see also Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726,
733 (1991), aff’d, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1947) (“It has generally been held that oral testimony which is in conflict
with contemporaneous documents is entitled to little evidentiary weight”)). “Written
documentation recorded by a disinterested person at or soon after the event at issue is generally
more reliable than the recollection of a party to a lawsuit many years later.” Reusser v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993).
However, there are situations in which compelling oral testimony may be more persuasive
than written records--for instance in cases where records are found to be incomplete or inaccurate.
Campbell, 69 Fed. Cl. at 779 (“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule
should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its application
are weak or lacking”); Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (“Written records which are, themselves,
inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent”)
(quoting Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733).
When witness testimony is used to overcome the presumption of accuracy afforded to
contemporaneous medical records, such testimony must be “consistent, clear, cogent, and
compelling.” Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013)(citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In determining the accuracy and
completeness of medical records, the Court of Federal Claims has listed 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 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A special master
making a determination whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records or
other evidence, such as testimony at a hearing must have evidence suggesting the decision was a
rational determination. Burns by Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
V. Findings of Fact
The issue to be addressed is when Petitioner’s symptoms of left shoulder pain began.
Petitioner has the burden 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). In light of the witness testimony, medical records, affidavits, and
other documentary evidence presented in this case, and after my careful examination of the record
as a whole, I find there is preponderant evidence that the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms of left
shoulder pain began on October 5, 2015, the day of vaccination.
8

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 9 of 9
In her affidavit and during her testimony at the hearing, Petitioner attests that she
experienced pain the same day that she received her flu vaccination. I find her testimony on this
point to be credible, and further find this testimony is corroborated by her medical records, and by
the affidavits and email correspondence of Ms. DeMarzio.
Petitioner did not seek medical attention for her shoulder pain until June 17, 2016, more
than eight months after her vaccination. However, when Petitioner did seek treatment for her pain,
she consistently attributed her left shoulder pain to her flu shot.3 See Ex. 5 at 14; Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 6
at 9; Ex. 13 at 2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s medical records support a finding that Petitioner
experienced pain close-in-time to her flu vaccination.
The affidavits of Ms. DeMarzio and the email correspondence between Ms. DeMarzio and
Mr. Wrzesniewski are especially compelling. Ms. DeMarzio confirms that she spoke with
Petitioner about Petitioner’s pain several weeks after vaccination. Ms. DeMarzio indicates that
after she experienced similar symptoms, and when another employee came to her complaining of
shoulder pain after the flu shot, she reached out to Giant Pharmacy and then sent an email to David
Wrzesniewski. Her initial email to Mr. Wrzesniewski is dated December 17, 2015 and indicates
that she has received “complaints from some employees about their flu shot area still hurting.” Id.
at 3-4. This email corroborates Petitioner’s claims articulated in her affidavit and in her testimony
at the hearing. Specifically, Petitioner has consistently maintained that she felt immediate pain
after her vaccination.
VI. Conclusion
I find that the affidavits submitted by and on behalf of Petitioner, the testimony, the medical
records, and the other documentary evidence work in concert to provide preponderant evidence
that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began on October 5, 2015
The following is therefore ORDERED:
By no later than Monday, March 16, 2020, Petitioner and Respondent shall file a joint
status report updating me on their proposed next steps in the case based on the facts articulated in
this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 These records generally indicate that pain began “after a flu shot” and do not specifically discuss whether
the pain began within 48 hours of injection. I find there is preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s pain
began within 48 hours of her flu shot for the reasons articulated in this decision.
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00044-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-09-24
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/22/2020) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-44V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
LORI CARRE,
*
* Filed: July 22, 2020
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza Vaccine; Left Shoulder Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Related to Vaccine Administration
HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SIRVA”).
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, P.A., Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 8, 2018, Lori Carre (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1.
Petitioner alleges she suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) following receipt of the flu vaccine on October 5, 2015. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated
July 22, 2020 (ECF No. 45); see also Petition. She further alleges that she experienced the residual
effects of this injury for more than six months. See Stipulation ¶ 4.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of
certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen
days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret
or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files
or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter
“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the
pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies “that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table Injury, and denies that the
flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner to suffer a left shoulder injury or any other injury or her current
condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation filed July 22, 2020 that the issues before them can be settled and
that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth
therein.
The stipulation awards:
a lump sum of $53,000.00 in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk
of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice
renouncing their right to seek review.

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
LORI CARRE, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 18-0044V
v. ) Special Master Oler
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1.Lori Carre, petitioner, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (the “Vaccine Program”).
The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner’s receipt of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which is a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”),
42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (a).
2. Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 5, 2015.
3. The vaccination was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccination
administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set forth in the Table following receipt of the
flu vaccine and that she experienced the residual effects of this alleged injury for more than six
months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages on her behalf as a result of his condition.

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, and denies that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer a left shoulder injury or any other injury or her current
condition.
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)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of $53,000.00 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-15(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)(1), 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.
10. 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
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.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 7
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation 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-15(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 Court 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 October 5, 2015, as
alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about January 8, 2018, in
the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 18-0044V.
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.
3

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 7
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 Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity 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 parties’ respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, 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 sustain a left
shoulder injury, or any other injury or her current condition.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner’s
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4

Case 1:18-vv-00044-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 7