VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00870
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00870
Petitioner: Tonya DeCoursey
Filed: 2018-06-19
Decided: 2021-10-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-01-03
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60000

AI-assisted case summary:
Tonya DeCoursey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine she received on January 3, 2017. She stated the vaccine was administered in the United States, the injury had residual effects for more than six months, and she had no prior award or settlement for this condition. Respondent denied that Ms. DeCoursey sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injuries or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these positions, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that the case should be settled and compensation awarded. Chief Special Master Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision awarding damages. Ms. DeCoursey was awarded a lump sum of $60,000.00, representing compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The award was made pursuant to a stipulation that settled liability and damages, with the understanding that it was not an admission of causation by the respondent. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the parties agreed to further proceedings for attorneys' fees and costs.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00870-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-12
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/09/2020) regarding 35 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-870V
UNPUBLISHED
TONYA DECOURSEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 9, 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)
Leah Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Catherine Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On June 19, 2018, Tonya DeCoursey 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 injuries, including a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), resulting from adverse effects of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine administered in her left deltoid on January 3, 2017. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner’s SIRVA onset likely did not
begin within the 48-hour timeframe established for the Table claim.
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 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 6
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. DeCoursey filed her petition for compensation on June 19, 2018. ECF No. 1.
By July 1, 2018, Petitioner filed most of her relevant medical records and a Statement of
Completion. ECF Nos. 7-8. On September 28, 2018, however, Respondent’s counsel
observed additional medical records that had not been filed. ECF No. 12. By October 31,
2018, counsel for Petitioner reported that each of the items identified in Respondent’s
status report had been filed. ECF No. 16. Additionally, on October 15, 2018, Petitioner
forwarded a settlement demand to Respondent. ECF No. 14.
On April 4, 2019, Respondent advised that he was willing to consider a reasonable
settlement demand in this case. ECF. No. 21. However, on May 6, 2018, Petitioner
explained that Respondent had not yet responded to her October 15, 2018 settlement
demand, but expected a response from Respondent to be forthcoming. ECF No. 23.
Respondent responded to Petitioner’s settlement demand on June 17, 2019. ECF No. 28.
In a July 16, 2019 joint status report, the parties indicated that they “see the case quite
differently,” and that Respondent accordingly intended to file his Rule 4(c) Report within
45 days. Id.
On September 3, 2019, Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) Report maintaining that the
case was not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Act.
Respondent’s Report at 1 (ECF No. 29). Respondent argues that “the record does not
demonstrate that [P]etitioner’s symptoms began within 48 hours of vaccination,” because
her “first complaints of shoulder pain were non-specific with respect to onset, and do not
clearly show that she had symptoms within 48 hours of the vaccination,” but instead that
the record supported an onset of more than two days post-vaccination. Id. at 5.
Respondent further argues that Petitioner does not allege in the alternative that her
shoulder pain was caused-in-fact by the vaccination, and thus, has not shown a proximate
temporal relationship between the vaccination and her injury. Id. at 6. In Respondent’s
Report, Respondent noted that there were still records missing from the record and
requested that Petitioner file a complete and certified copy of the missing records. Id. at
2.
On September 5, 2019, former Chief Special Master Dorsey (who was presiding
over the case at the time) stated that based on her review of the existing record, an onset
hearing was not necessary, nor were briefs needed. ECF No. 30. Petitioner was ordered
to refile her complete records as a new exhibit, including the request made upon the
facility and any response provided with the record or certified records from this provider.
Id. On October 29, 2019, Petitioner filed a certified copy of the missing records at
Petitioner’s Exhibit (Pet. Ex.) 14. See ECF No. 32.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 6
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was within 48-hours
after vaccination as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B.
(2017) (influenza vaccination); 2 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Vaccine Act, 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. Section
13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
3

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 6
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 following findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and any additional evidence filed:
• Petitioner was administered a flu vaccine in her left shoulder on January 3, 2017.
Ex. 1 at 1.
• In her affidavit, Ms. Decoursey averred “I received a flu shot in my left arm during
a regular (ITP) Thrombocytopenia follow-up appointment at my Hematologist
Clinic, UF Health Adult Hematology Oncology. Approximately 2 days after
receiving the shot, I experienced soreness that continued to get worse and became
unbearable. The pain became so bad that I could not lift my left arm away from my
body. I had to use my right hand to lift my left arm just to bathe and dress myself.
Activities such as driving and steering a car resulted in excruciating pain. There
were times I needed help to help bathe and dress myself. The only relief I
experienced was when resting my left arm against my body.” Ex. 8 at 1.
• On January 20, 2017, 17 days after vaccination, Ms. DeCoursey sent a message
to the clinic where she received the vaccine and informed the clinical staff about
the pain from the vaccination. See Ex. 7 at 1. The note states “I received the flu
shot on January 3 there and I have been having alot [sic] of pain in my shoulder,
its almost unbearable. Any suggestions to help ease this pain? Limited range of
motion, swelling, very painful.” Id. The provider indicated that “the muscle must be
4

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 6
irritated” and recommended Ms. DeCoursey try a heating pad or cold compress
and to take Tylenol for the discomfort. Id.
• On January 26, 2017, Ms. DeCoursey sent a follow-up message to the clinic. See
Ex. 7 at 2. The message states “[t]he pain from flu shot site area (shoulder) hasn’t
gotten any better. I’ve been doing as told, hot/cold compresses, Tylenol. This pain
is so discomforting, this can’t be typical soreness its by far a 10(pain). I’m sorry to
keep bothering the clinic, but I’m hurting.” Id. The provider forwarded Petitioner’s
message to a physician and recommended that she check with her primary care
physician for additional recommendations. Id.
• The next day, on January 27, 2017, Petitioner presented Dr. Jonathan Taffe, her
primary care physician, for an initial evaluation of left shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 1. Dr.
Taffe noted “[g]radual onset since receiving flu vaccine. Duration: 3 weeks.
Severity: moderate-severe.” Id. Dr. Taffe’s assessment was “Acute, moderate-
severe. Differentials include [rotator cuff] RTC tear vs [subacromial bursitis] SAB
but concerning for a tear. Discussed management: xray/MRI and [follow-up] f/u
with results. If there is no tear then we can consider a steroid injection.” Id. at 3.
• More than one year later, and following a successful February 2017 steroid
injection, on February 7, 2018, Petitioner presented to Dr. Joseph King, III on
February 7, 2018, at the University of Florida Department of Orthopedics. Ex. 5 at
1; Ex. 6 at 8. The note states that Ms. DeCoursey had complaints of left shoulder
pain and stiffness with “sudden onset since 2-3 days after she got a flu shot on
1/3/17. Patient denies history of a specific injury.” Ex. 5 at 3.
• On March 12, 2018, Ms. DeCoursey received a physical therapy consult with
physical therapist, Christine Eckert. Ex. 9 at 7. The note states, “Patient got a flu
shot last January and had typical soreness that never went away.” Id. The
assessment continues, “[t]he patient presents today with left shoulder pain that
began last year after receiving a flu shot causing her to not be able to lift her arm
independently.”
Although the record contains some ambiguities, it does not preponderantly support
a finding that onset began in 48 hours of vaccination. I base this determination on several
items of evidence. First, Petitioner’s own affidavit does not report an immediate onset, but
rather places it in two days. While arguably this could be deemed to mean less than 48
hours, it does not tend to suggest that. Second, although the records do support the
conclusion that Petitioner did feel pain close in time to receipt of the vaccine, and promptly
sought care for that pain, she did not right away describe a fast onset. Indeed, the January
27th record only reports a “gradual” onset, which is not wholly consistent with one within
48 hours. Ex. 6 at 1.
Finally, and most persuasively, the records from a year later do not clarify onset
as closer in time to vaccination, but instead affirmatively state an onset of two to three
days post-vaccination. Ex. 5 at 3. In many cases in which onset is disputed, a petitioner
5

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/12/20 Page 6 of 6
over time more regularly identifies a closer onset – whereas here Petitioner (consistent
with her affidavit) does not.
Accordingly, I find there is insufficient preponderant evidence to establish onset of
Petitioner’s pain within 48 hours of vaccination, and therefore this case must be
transferred from SPU. I also note, however, that other Table indicia of a valid SIRVA claim
(e.g., fairly immediate pain consistent with a Table definition for SIRVA) does seem to
exist – meaning that this claim is likely a viable non-Table claim. To that end, I urge the
parties to make one final brief attempt at settlement – as I would anticipate that even after
transfer, Petitioner’s claim will be seen favorably by the special master who receives it.
The parties shall file a final settlement status report on or before August 31,
2020. The matter shall be transferred thereafter if the parties do not report progress
in these efforts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00870-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-10-08
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/08/2021) regarding 48 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-870V
UNPUBLISHED
TONYA DECOURSEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 8, 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)
Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Daniel A. Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On June 19, 2018, Tonya Decoursey 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), resulting from the adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination
she received on January 3, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at September 7, 2021,
¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered in the United States, she
experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months, and there has
been no prior award of settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result
of her condition. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that
[P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused
[P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injuries, or any other injury; and denies that her current
condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on September 7, 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 $60,000.00 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 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
TONY A DECOURSEY, ) No. 18-870V
) Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, ) ECF
)
V. )
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1. Petitioner, Tonya DeCoursey, 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 contained in the Vaccine Injury Table {the "Table"), 42
C.F.R. § 100.3 (a).
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm on January 3, 2017.
3. The vaccine was administered withln the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration ("SJRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table following the flu vaccine.
She further alleges that she has experienced residual effects oft his 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 her condition.

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SlRV A Table injury; denies that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injuries, or any other injury; and denies that her
current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.
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 ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent
with the tenns of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive
compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)( l), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will iss11e the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$60,000.00 in the fonn ofa check payable to petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U. S.C.
§ 300aa-1 S(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment 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-2I(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.
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-1S (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 ct seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 5 of 7
11. 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-1S(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 unreimbursable 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-lS(a) and (d), and subject to the
conditions of 42 U. S.C. § 300aa-l S(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 ofp etitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from a flu vaccine administered on January 3, 20 l 7, as alleged
by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about June 19, 20 I 8, in the
United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 18-870V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be
voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both oft he parties.
3

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 6 of 7
15. lfthe special master fails to issue a decision in complete confonnity with the
tenns of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity
with a decision that is in complete confonnity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
l 6. 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 ofd amages, 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.
I 7. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injuries, or any other injury; or that her current
condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equaJly to
petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4

Case 1:18-vv-00870-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/08/21 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
0~~
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
~PETITIMONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~~""-~~
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
1717 K Street NW. Suite 900 Deputy Director
Washington, DC 20006 Torts Branch
202-775-9200 Civil Division
U.S. Department ofJ ustice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OFTHESECRETARYOFHEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
~ A-()rvt'\~~
[:)a,& ~~LP~
~I ~C.,ltf,t,
TAMARA OVERBY DANIELA. PRINCIPATO
Acting Dir~tor, Division of Injury Trial Attorney
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, 08Nl46B (202) 616-3662
Rockville, MD 20857 daniel.prindpato@usdoj.gov
lt>1'/-ts2-
Dated: C4 J
s