VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00449
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00449
Petitioner: Karen Owens
Filed: 2018-03-27
Decided: 2020-05-12
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2015-04-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35649

AI-assisted case summary:
Karen Owens filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 27, 2018, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on April 13, 2015. The petition stated that the vaccination was received in the United States, that the residual effects of the SIRVA lasted for more than six months, and that no civil action had been filed or compensation received for the injury. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed an amended Rule 4 report on January 31, 2020, conceding that the petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. This concession followed a prior fact ruling on October 31, 2019, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, which found preponderant evidence that the petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on February 5, 2020, finding Ms. Owens entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 9, 2020, the respondent filed a proffer on the award of damages, which the petitioner agreed to. The proffer stipulated an award of $35,649.41, comprising $35,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering and $649.41 for actual unreimbursable expenses. On May 12, 2020, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding Ms. Owens the stipulated amount of $35,649.41 as a lump sum payment. Ms. Owens is a competent adult, and no guardianship was required. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests performed, or treatments received. Petitioner was represented by William E. Cochran, Jr., and respondent was represented by Jennifer Leigh Reynaud.

Theory of causation field:
Karen Owens filed a petition alleging a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on April 13, 2015. The respondent conceded that the injury met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that the petitioner suffered residual effects for more than six months. The case proceeded as an uncontested, Table injury. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran ruled on entitlement on February 5, 2020, finding Ms. Owens entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision on May 12, 2020, awarded $35,649.41, consisting of $35,000.00 for pain and suffering and $649.41 for past unreimbursable expenses, based on a stipulation between the parties. Petitioner was represented by William E. Cochran, Jr., and respondent was represented by Jennifer Leigh Reynaud.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00449-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-12-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/31/2019) regarding 32 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ypb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/26/19 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0449V
UNPUBLISHED
KAREN OWENS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 31, 2019
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Requirement; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN ,
for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On March 27, 2018, Karen Owens 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 the Table injury of shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on April 13, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/26/19 Page 2 of 5
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner suffered the residual effects of
her injury for more than six months.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Shortly after filing her petition, Ms. Owens filed her medical records and affidavit.
Exhibits 1-9, filed Mar. 29, 2018, ECF No. 6. On May 2, 2018, Petitioner filed a letter and
curriculum vitae from Allain A. Girouard, M.D. Exhibits 10-11, ECF No. 9. Dr. Girouard
writes that “[b]ased on [his] treatment and care provided to Ms. Owens since her July 28,
2015, and her MRI on August 13, 2015, [his] diagnosis is that Ms. Owens was suffering
from left shoulder tendinosis and bursitis from inflammation from a reaction to the
injection.” Id. at 1. He opines that “[i]t would be reasonable to expect that [Ms. Owens’s]
left shoulder symptoms associated with that diagnosis would probably persist until at least
late October/November, 2015, and possibly longer.” Id. at 1-2.
On February 20, 2019, Respondent filed a status report indicating he wished to
defend this case. ECF No. 19. On May 10, 2019, he filed his Rule 4(c) report, indicating
he “has concluded that the evidence does not support a finding that petitioner suffered
the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months after the administration
of the vaccine of that treatment of petitioner’s alleged vaccine-related injury resulted in
inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.” Id. at 1-2. Respondent adds that
except for a failure to meet the statutory six month requirement, he believes “petitioner’s
alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA that was caused by the administration of
petitioner’s Tdap vaccination.” Id. at 6. Respondent argues that Dr. Girouard’s letter
provides little support for petitioner’s assertion that her symptoms persisted for more than
six months after her Tdap vaccine because he has not examined her since July 28, 2015,
and thus appears to have relied heavily upon petitioner’s affidavit, which describes a
severity of symptoms in the fall of 2015 that is not consistent with the record.” Id. at 7.
After reviewing the Rule 4(c) report and record in this case, then Chief Special
Master Dorsey3 determined a finding of fact regarding the statutory six month issue was
appropriate in this case. ECF No. 26. She set a deadline for the parties’ simultaneous
briefs. Id.
The parties filed their briefs on July 9, 2019. ECF Nos. 28-29. Petitioner filed a
response to Respondent’s brief on July 30, 2019. ECF No. 31. Petitioner also filed
medical literature4 and affidavits from her husband, daughter, and second affidavit from
herself on May 20 and July 30, 2019. Exhibits 12-15, ECF Nos. 23, 30.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
3 Prior to October 1, 2019, this case was assigned to then Chief Special Master Dorsey. She stepped down
as Chief Special Master on October 1, 2019, and the case was reassigned to me as the new Chief Special
Master.
4 As Exhibit 15, Petitioner filed an article which she cited to in her brief. S. Atanasoff et al., Shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), 28 Vaccine 8049 (2010).
2

Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/26/19 Page 3 of 5
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of her SIRVA
for more than six months. § 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six month requirement).
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 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. Findings of Fact
I make the findings in this ruling after a complete review of the record to include all
medical records, medical literature, affidavits, Dr. Girouard’s expert report, and additional
evidence filed. Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
• The medical records from the physical therapy (“PT”) Petitioner underwent
from June 9, 2015 through July 13, 2015 (two to three months after
vaccination) show she suffered persistent and severe pain which improved
over the course of her treatment. Exhibit 4 at 2-6. At her first PT session,
Petitioner described her pain as “persistent and impacting her indep[edent]
daily mobility. Id. at 2. Noting that her pain interfered significantly with her
sleep, Petitioner rated the level of her pain as eight out of ten. At the next
session, Petitioner again described her pain as severe and reported that it
impacted all use of her left upper extremity. Id. At the next three sessions,
Petitioner described her pain as severe and deep. Id. at 3-4. From June
25, 2015 through her last PT session on July 13, 2015, petitioner reported
3

Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/26/19 Page 4 of 5
improvement in the intensity of her pain. Id. at 4-6. However, Petitioner
noted that her pain persisted. Id. at 5-6.
• The medical record from Petitioner’s July 28, 2015 visit to orthopedist Dr.
Girouard indicates Petitioner “had developed more pain with movement with
some radiation that goes down into her forearm.” Exhibit 5 at 1. That record
includes a page regarding the definition of emergency medical condition
under Florida law. It appears Dr. Girouard believed Petitioner exhibited
“acute clinical findings . . . consistent with the . . . Florida statute.” Id. at 3.
He prescribed a left shoulder MRI. Id. at 4.
• The results of Petitioner’s MRI, performed on August 13, 2015,
approximately four months after vaccination, showed mild tendinosis and
subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis. Exhibit 5 at 14. “Slightly prominent fluid in
the subacromial/subdeltoid bursa” was observed. Id.
• In a letter dated April 12, 2018, Dr. Girouard opined that Petitioner’s
tendinosis and bursitis was due to inflammation from receiving the Tdap
vaccine on April 13, 2015 and that her left shoulder symptoms would have
persisted until at least October/November 2015, possibly longer. Exhibit 10
at 1-2. Describing the results of the physical examination he performed on
July 28, 2015, Dr. Girouard noted Petitioner “demonstrated a painful arc of
motion in her shoulder from 90-110 degrees with a painful deltoid
inflammation at the old injection site.” Id. at 1. He also noted Petitioner
“had some pain in her acromioclavicular joint, her deltoid muscle, and the
posterior of the scapula area with mild tenderness to palpitation.” Id. He
described the results of Petitioner’s August 13, 2015 MRI and explained that
“[his] office contacted Ms. Owens after the August 13, 2015 MRI to inform
her of the results and that no surgery would be needed.” Id.
• In her first affidavit, Petitioner recalled that a nurse in Dr. Girouard’s office
contacted her regarding the results of her August 13, 2015 MRI. Exhibit 1
at 8. She maintains that she never scheduled a follow-up appointment,
however, due to her busy work and family life schedule, and the fact that
she was able to adequately manage her pain with over the counter
medications, her home exercise program (“HEP”), and rest. Id. at 9.
Petitioner repeated these claims in her second affidavit. Exhibit 14 at 2-3.
She provided additional details regarding her busy work and family life and
added that she believed her SIRVA would resolve over time. Id. at 5-8.
• Petitioner’s husband and daughter provided affidavits detailing instances
through Thanksgiving and Christmas 2015 when they noticed Petitioner’s
left shoulder pain interfering with her ability to perform specific tasks.
Exhibits 12-13.
The medical records establish Petitioner suffered persist and constant left shoulder
pain through at least the end of July 2015, three months post-vaccination. The medical
4

Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/26/19 Page 5 of 5
record from Petitioner’s July 28, 2015 visit to Dr. Girouard establishes that Petitioner’s
pain was intensifying at that time. Exhibit 5 at 1.
Nevertheless, Petitioner maintains she was able to manage her continued pain
without professional medial intervention through over-the-counter medications, a HEP,
and rest, and thus did not seek further medical treatment after her August 13, 2015 MRI
(four months post-vaccination). Exhibit 1 at ¶ 9; Exhibit 14 at ¶ 3. Dr. Girouard’s letter
supports Petitioner’s assertions as he confirms that she was provided the results of her
MRI telephonically by a nurse in his office and informed that she did not require surgery.
Exhibit 10 at 1. Had he indicated further treatment, such as surgery, was needed,
Petitioner would have had more motivation to schedule a follow-up appointment.
Petitioner’s claims of a busy work and family life are supported by her husband
and daughter. Additionally, they provided detailed examples of times when they observed
Petitioner’s ongoing shoulder pain. Exhibits 12-13. These examples, provided in sworn
statements, provide support for Petitioner’s claims.
Most importantly, Petitioner’s treating orthopedist, Dr. Girouard, has opined that
Petitioner would have likely continued to experience symptoms of her SIRVA through at
least November 2015, possibly longer. Exhibit 10. Although Dr. Girouard attached
Petitioner’s affidavit to his report (id. at 2), he clearly states that he is basing his opinion
on his treatment and care of Ms. Owens and the results of her August 13, 2015 MRI (id.
at 1). To support his opinion, he describes in great detail Petitioner’s condition when he
treated her on July 28, 2015. Id.
Given all of the above and despite a lack of medical records from September
to the end of the fall of 2015, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months.
Specifically, I find Petitioner suffered the effects of her injury at least through
November 2015.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact regarding the sequelae of Petitioner’s injury, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Respondent shall file a Status Report regarding his current position by no
than Monday, December 02, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00449-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-03-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/05/2020) regarding 38 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0449V
UNPUBLISHED
KAREN OWENS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 5, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus, Diphtheria,
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 27, 2018, Karen Owens 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 the Table injury of shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on April 13, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. Petitioner
further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United States, that she suffered
the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any
other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2,
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 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2
12, 14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On October 31, 2019, I issued a fact ruling, finding there is preponderant
evidence to establish that “Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury for more
than six months.” Fact Ruling at 2, ECF No. 32. Subsequently, Respondent indicated
he wished to file an amended Rule 4 report and is willing to discuss informal resolution
in this case.” Status Report, filed Dec. 2, 2019, ECF No. 33.
Respondent has filed his amended Rule 4 report advising that, accepting my
factual finding regarding the statutory six month requirement “as the law of the case for
purposes of further proceedings, . . . DICP has concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA
as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Rule 4 Report, filed Jan. 31, 2020, at 2, ECF
No. 37. Respondent adds that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his
right to appeal the Ruling of Facts, respondent does not dispute that petitioner has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6.
In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00449-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-12
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/09/2020) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 4
Corrected
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0449V
UNPUBLISHED
KAREN OWENS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 9, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 27, 2018, Karen Owens 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 the Table injury of shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on April 13, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 5, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On April 9, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $35,649.41,
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 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 4
representing compensation in the amount of $35,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual and
projected pain and suffering3 and in the amount of $649.41 for Petitioner’s actual
unreimburseable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 2. 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 $35,649.41, representing compensation in the amount of
$35,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual and projected pain and suffering and in the
amount of $649.41 for Petitioner’s actual unreimburseable expenses in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Any amount being awarded for Petitioner’s projected pain and suffering has been reduced to its net
present value. Proffer at 1; see § 300aa-15(a)(4) (requiring this reduction).
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 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
KAREN OWENS,
Petitioner, No. 18-449V
v. Chief Special Master Corcoran
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF DAMAGES
On March 27, 2018, Karen Owens (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. The Petition alleged that petitioner suffered a
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) following her receipt of a
tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine on April 13, 2015. Respondent conceded
petitioner’s entitlement to compensation in his Rule 4(c) Report filed on January 31, 2020.
Based on Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report the Court found petitioner entitled to compensation.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $35,000.00 in actual and projected
pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any 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 her expenditure of past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
1

Case 1:18-vv-00449-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 4
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $649.41. Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $35,649.41, in the form of a check made payable to petitioner.1
This lump sum payment represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Jennifer L. Reynaud
JENNIFER L. REYNAUD
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) 305-1586
Date: April 9, 2020
1 Should petitioner die prior to the 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 lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2