VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00620
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00620
Petitioner: Ernest Perkins
Filed: 2018-05-01
Decided: 2021-02-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-29
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 32378

AI-assisted case summary:
Ernest Perkins filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) in his left shoulder after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 29, 2015. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report stating they did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Mr. Perkins suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's position and the evidence, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Mr. Perkins entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties submitted a proffer on the award of compensation. Respondent recommended an award of $32,378.10, comprising $30,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,378.10 for past unreimbursable expenses. Mr. Perkins agreed with this proffered award. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding Mr. Perkins a lump sum payment of $32,378.10, representing compensation for pain and suffering and actual unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00620-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-10-11
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 7/25/2019) regarding 27 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (ypb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0620V
Filed: July 25, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
ERNEST PERKINS,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Related to Vaccine Administration
HUMAN SERVICES, (SIRVA)
Respondent.
David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for petitioner.
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) in his left shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on October 29, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine
Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the
disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management
and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 4
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned finds the onset of petitioner’s
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination. Specifically, petitioner suffered pain within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
In support of his claim, petitioner filed medical records (Exs. 2-7), his own
affidavits (Exs. 1, 8, 12), and affidavits from his wife (Ex. 9, Joelle Perkins), father (Ex.
10, Ernest R. Perkins), and mother (Ex. 11, Ritva T. Perkins). Deadlines for respondent
to report his position in the case were set following the May 23, 2018 initial status
conference. Order, ECF No. 9; see also Docket Entries dated June 26, 2018, Aug. 24,
2018, and Oct. 29, 2018.
On January 28, 2019, respondent reported that he intended to defend the case
and requested a deadline be set for his Rule 4(c) report. ECF No. 18. Respondent filed
his Rule 4(c) report on March 29, 2019. Resp. Rep., ECF No. 20. In this report,
respondent argues that petitioner has not met his burden of establishing that the onset
of his shoulder injury occurred within 48 hours of his October 29, 2015 flu vaccination.
Id. at 7.
Thereafter, the undersigned reviewed the evidence and determined that fact
hearing or briefing would not be necessary. Order, ECF No. 21. A deadline was set for
closing the record on the matter of onset. Id. In response, petitioner filed a
supplemental affidavit. Ex. 12, ECF No. 22. The matter is now ripe.
II. Issue
At issue is whether petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration was within 48 hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination). Additionally, the Qualifications
and aids to interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA requires that a petitioner’s pain
occur within this same time frame, 48 hours. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act § 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
§ 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).
2

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 4
“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
The undersigned makes the finding after a complete review of the record to
include all medical records, affidavits, respondent’s Rule 4(c) report, and additional
evidence filed. Specifically, the undersigned bases the finding on the following
evidence:
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine in his left deltoid on October 29, 2015. Ex.
6.
• On April 28, 2016, petitioner was seen by family care practitioner, Dr. Rachel
Hobbs, as a new patient establishing care. Ex. 3 at 1. At this visit, petitioner
reported left shoulder pain. Id. Dr. Hobbs noted “He did have a [flu] vaccine
in October. He states that the following day he had some left shoulder pain.”
Id. Dr. Hobbs ordered and x-ray and MRI. Id. at 5-6.
• The clinical history on the April 28, 2019 x-ray report reads “[p]ain after flu
shot for six months.” Ex. 3 at 5.
• On May 16, 2016, petitioner presented to FitQuest for his first physical
therapy (“PT”) appointment. Ex. 4 at 1. Petitioner reported that he “received
a flu shot in his L arm last October. He noticed pain, redness and swelling
that cont’ed to worsen. In January pain got considerably worse.” Id.
• Petitioner averred that the day after his October 29, 2015 flu vaccination “I
started to have pain in my left shoulder.” Ex. 1 at ¶¶4-5.
• Petitioner’s wife, Joelle Perkins, recalls that petitioner “complained to me on
the day of his flu shot about the pain he was feeling and that he thought it had
been administered too high on his arm.” Ex. 9 at ¶2.
• Petitioner’s mother, Ritva Perkins, recalls that petitioner “told us that the shot
was administered too high on his arm, and that the flu shot was very painful
during the injection and afterwards.” Ex. 4 at ¶4.
• Petitioner’s father, Ernest R. Perkins, recalls that the weekend following
vaccination, petitioner told him that he “thought the shot was the direct cause
of his [shoulder] pain & problems as it was not administered in a normal
location.” Ex. 10 at ¶7.
3

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 4
The above medical entries are consistent with petitioner’s affidavit testimony that
his left shoulder pain began at the time of, or the day after, he received the flu vaccine
on October 29, 2015. The undersigned finds the sworn testimony of petitioner, his wife,
mother, and father to be credible and in agreement with the contemporaneously created
treatment records. As such, the undersigned finds preponderant evidence that the
onset of petitioner’s left shoulder injury occurred within 48 hours of his October 29, 2015
flu vaccination.
V. Petitioner’s Motion for Hearing
On June 20, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for hearing regarding onset. Pet.’s
Mot., ECF No. 20. Responsive briefing was timely filed. Resp.’s Resp., ECF No. 25;
Pet.’s Reply, ECF No. 26.
In light of the above ruling in petitioner’s favor, the undersigned deems
petitioner’s motion for hearing to be MOOT.3
VI. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file a status report by Thursday, September 5, 2019,
indicating whether he is interested in exploring an informal resolution of petitioner’s
claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Under the Vaccine Act, special masters have “wide discretion to determine whether to hold an
evidentiary hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3)(B)(v) (“a special master ... may conduct such hearings
as may be reasonable and necessary”); Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); D'Tiole v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, 726 F.App'x 809, 812 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Special
masters are not obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing before issuing an opinion. Kreizenbeck v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 141 Fed. Cl. 138, 139 (2018).
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00620-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-10-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/11/2019) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (ypb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 33 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-620V
Filed: September 11, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
ERNEST PERKINS,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for petitioner.
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) in his left shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on October 29, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine
Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the
disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management
and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 33 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 2
On September 5, 2019, respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which
he states that he does not contest that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this
case. Respondent’s Am. Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that
“[b]ased on the Chief Special Master’s fact ruling, and medical record evidence
submitted in this case, [respondent] will not continue to contest that petitioner suffered
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees
that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the
Findings of Fact, respondent does not dispute that petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.
In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00620-2
Date issued/filed: 2021-02-05
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/09/2020) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 55 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0620V
UNPUBLISHED
ERNEST PERKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 9, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for petitioner.
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) in his left shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on October 29, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 11, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On December 9, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $32,378.10,
representing $30,000.00 for his pain and suffering and $2,378.10 for his past
unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
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-00620-UNJ Document 55 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 5
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $32,378.10, representing $30,000.00 for his pain and suffering and
$2,378.10 for his actual unreimbursable expenses in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.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 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 55 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
ERNEST PERKINS, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 18-620V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On May 1, 2018, Ernest Perkins (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (“Vaccine Act” or
“Act”), alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”),
as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine on
October 29, 2015. Petition at 1-2. On September 5, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of the
Chief Special Master’s Findings of Fact ruling that the onset of petitioner’s left arm pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and the medical evidence submitted in this case,
respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Vaccine Act. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 8 (ECF #29). On September 11, 2019, the
Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to
vaccine compensation for his shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).1 See
Ruling on Entitlement (ECF #30).
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 55 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that Ernest Perkins should be awarded $30,000.00 in actual and
projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that the award for projected pain and
suffering has been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner
agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents Ernest Perkin’s expenditure of past
unreimbursable expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that
petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $2,378.10, as
provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to Ernest Perkins should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $32,378.10,
representing compensation for pain and suffering ($30,000.00), and past unreimbursable
expenses ($2,378.10), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ernest Perkins.
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s September 11, 2019, entitlement decision.
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future pain and
suffering.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00620-UNJ Document 55 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 5
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Ernest Perkins: $32,378.10
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GABRIELLE M. FIELDING
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Ida Nassar
IDA NASSAR
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) 616-4186
DATED: December 9, 2020
3