VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00975
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00975
Petitioner: Paula D. Tyson
Filed: 2020-01-13
Decided: 2020-08-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-02-08
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 81211

AI-assisted case summary:
Paula D. Tyson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine she received in her right shoulder on February 8, 2017. The respondent initially contested whether the onset of her injury occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. However, after a findings of fact ruling established that the onset was within the required timeframe, the respondent conceded that Ms. Tyson had otherwise satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The respondent found that she had no prior shoulder issues, the pain and limited motion began within 48 hours of the vaccination, the pain was localized to the shoulder that received the vaccine, and no other condition explained the symptoms. The injury also lasted more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master found Ms. Tyson entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages. On August 25, 2020, the court awarded Ms. Tyson a lump sum of $81,211.46, representing compensation for all damages available under the Vaccine Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00975-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-12-23
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/25/2019) regarding 25 Scheduling Order,, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-975V
UNPUBLISHED
PAULA D. TYSON,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 25, 2019
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On July 9, 2018, Paula D. Tyson 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 she suffered a “Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA), which was caused by the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she
received in her right shoulder on February 8, 2017. Petition at ¶¶ 2 & 18. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 This ruling will be posted 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, I agree that the identified material fits
within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 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).
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-00975-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 5
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, Petitioner suffered symptoms manifested by
pain immediately upon vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
In support of her claim, Petitioner filed medical records (Exs. 1-5, 7), and her own
affidavits (Ex. 6 & 8). Deadlines for Respondent to report his position in the case were set
following the August 28, 2018 initial status conference. Order, ECF No. 10; see also
Orders, dated Oct., 9, 2018, Dec. 11, 2018, Feb 7, 2019, and Apr. 9, 2019.
On May 9, 2019, Respondent filed a status report indicating his intention to defend
the case and requesting a Rule 4(c) Report deadline. ECF No. 18. Respondent filed a
Rule 4(c) Report on July 19, 2019. ECF No. 19. In his report, Respondent argued that
Petitioner had not met her burden of establishing that the onset of her alleged shoulder
injury occurred within 48 hours of her February 8, 2017 flu vaccination. Id. at 5-6.
In a Scheduling Order filed August 23, 2019, then-Chief Special Master Nora Beth
Dorsey reported that she had reviewed the record and determined that fact hearing or
briefing would not be necessary. ECF No. 20. A deadline was set for closing the record
on the matter of onset. Id. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Petitioner submitted affidavits
from three fact witnesses.3 ECF Nos. 21 & 23 (Exs. 9-11).
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
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
3 Petitioner filed two untimely affidavits absent a motion for leave to file out of time. See Order, ECF No.
20 (setting Sept. 26, 2019 filing deadline); Pet’s Notice of Filing, ECF No. 23, dated Oct. 2, 2019 (Exs. 10-
11). Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial efficiency, I shall consider the untimely affidavits herein.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 5
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.
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.” Curcuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the findings in this ruling after a complete review of the record, including all
medical records, affidavits, and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Specifically, I base the
finding on the following evidence:
• On February 8, 2017, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right shoulder at her
Primary Care Provider (“PCP”). Ex. 7.
• On April 3, 2017, Petitioner returned to her PCP for a follow-up for several of her
ongoing health conditions including insomnia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and
depression. Ex. 2 at 8. Petitioner denied any new complaints and requested a
refill of her prescriptions. Id. Petitioner was examined by physician assistant
(“PA”) Amanda McCook who noted “painful joints that is recurrent” under
Petitioner’s musculoskeletal exam. Id.
• On June 8, 2017, Petitioner returned to her PCP and was seen again by PA
McCook. Ex. 2 at 5. Petitioner now reported pain in right upper extremity since
her February flu vaccination. Id. Petitioner reported her range of motion was
decreased due to pain and that she had been trying to control the pain with over-
the-counter arthritis cream and ibuprofen. Id. PA McCook administered a steroid
injection in Petitioner’s right shoulder and referred for an x-ray and MRI. Id. at 6-
7.
• On July 12, 2017, Petitioner returned to her PCP and reported increased right
shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 2. During this appointment, Petitioner explained to PA
McCook that she had not yet completed the recommended MRI due to inability to
pay her insurance co-payment for the procedure. Id. PA McCook noted Petitioner
3

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 5
having a decreased range of motion in her right shoulder and refilled Petitioner’s
pain medication. Id. at 3-4.
• On August 25, 2017, Petitioner underwent an MRI of her right shoulder with Dr.
Douglas Adolphson at Memorial Satilla Health.4 Ex. 4 at 24. Dr. Adolphson’s
impression was “[s]urpraspinatus tendinopathy with possible partial-thickness
articular sided tearing involving the anterior most supraspinatus tendon fibers.
Normal rotator cuff muscle bulk.” Id.
• On September 25, 2017, Petitioner was seen by orthopedic surgeon J. Lex
Kenerly, III. Ex. 5 at 1-5. Petitioner reported right shoulder pain since receiving a
flu vaccine in February.5 Id. at 1. Petitioner underwent an x-ray of her right
shoulder which Dr. Kenerly interpreted as normal. Id. at 4. Upon examination and
review of Petitioner’s MRI results, Dr. Kenerly proposed treatment options and
Petitioner opted to proceed with right shoulder surgery. Id.
• On November 29, 2017, Petitioner was evaluated by physical therapist Misty
Keller at Memorial Satilla Health for post-operative physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 4
at 36. PA Keller noted “[patient] report in February for a flu shot from PCP.
[Patient] states in April she began to have shoulder pain.” Id.
• Petitioner avers that her right should pain began immediately following her
February 8, 2017 flu vaccination. Exs. 6 & 8. Petitioner states that at the time of
her April 2017 PCP appointment, she believed the pain would resolve with the
use of over the counter medication, so she did not think it necessary to bring it up
at an appointment which she characterized as otherwise being solely for
medication refills. Ex. 8 at 2.
• Petitioner’s husband, Clarence Tyson, Jr., recalls Petitioner’s right shoulder pain
starting on the day of her February 8, 2017 flu vaccination. Ex. 9.
• Petitioner’s son, Clarence Tyson, and daughter-in-law, Marie Tyson, both recall
Petitioner having right shoulder pain during a visit on February 10, 2017. Exs.
10-11.
The above medical entries are largely consistent with Petitioner’s affidavit
testimony that her right shoulder pain began at the time she received the flu vaccine on
4 In the Shoulder MRI Patient History form associated with this visit, Petitioner indicated that she had an x-
ray completed in April 2017. Ex. 4 at 20. Petitioner’s shoulder x-ray was completed in June 2017, not April.
Ex. 2 at 7.
5 During her September 25, 2017 appointment with Dr. Kenerly, Petitioner reported that she had an injection
in April which provided some relief. Ex. 5 at 1. However, Petitioner did not receive a steroid injection during
her April 2017 PCP appointment but did so in June 2017, see Ex. 2 at 5, 8. Dr. Kenerly’s records
simultaneously refers to the duration of Petitioner’s pain as six months, while indicating an onset date of
February 8, 2017 (more than seven months before the September 27, 2017 appointment). See id. at 4.
4

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 5
February 8, 2017. To the extent that the records presents some notable inconsistencies
as to the history of Petitioner’s course of care (see fn. 4 & 5, supra; see also Ex. 4 at 36),
these discrepancies do not overcome Petitioner’s otherwise consistent reporting to her
PCP and orthopedic surgeon that her right shoulder pain began following her February
2017 flu vaccination.
Admittedly, Petitioner’s November 29, 2017 PT record presents the closest
contradiction to Petitioner’s claimed onset. Ex. 4 at 36. In this record, PA Keller
confusingly notes the date of Petitioner’s flu vaccination while also indicating that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain began in April. Id. For several reasons, however, I find it
appropriate to give this inconsistent record little weight. The record was made four and a
half months into Petitioner’s shoulder pain treatment, following referrals from her PCP
and orthopedic surgeon who each recorded the onset of Petitioner’s pain as February 8,
2017. Furthermore, the PT record itself mentions Petitioner’s flu vaccination as part of
the history of Petitioner’s shoulder pain. I find the orthopedist and PCP records (created
more contemporaneously to the Petitioner’s February 2017 flu vaccination) to be more
persuasive.
Furthermore, while Petitioner did not initially report her right shoulder pain to her
PCP on April 3, 2017, she appears to have reported ongoing joint pain. Ex. 2 at 8. As
such, the record does not directly contradict Petitioner’s assertion that she was
experiencing shoulder pain at that time that she hoped would resolve with over-the-
counter medication, but instead merely omits explicit reference to the onset of shoulder
pain. In addition, although the first medical record evidence corroborating Petitioner's
onset assertions occurs four months after vaccination, I do not find under the
circumstances that this lag weakens the conclusion that her claimed onset is “more likely
than not.” This finding is well supported by Petitioner’s subsequent treatment records
(generated prior to the claim's filing) which refer to the February 8, 2017 flu vaccination
in relation to the onset of her pain. Likewise, I find that the sworn testimony of Petitioner’s
witnesses to be credible and in agreement with the Petitioner’s assertions. As such, I find
preponderant evidence that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder injury occurred within
48 hours of her February 8, 2017 flu vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact regarding the onset of Ms. Tyson’s pain, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, December 9,
2019, an amended Rule 4 Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the
above fact finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00975-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-02-13
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/13/2020) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (SW) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-975V
UNPUBLISHED
PAULA D. TYSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 13, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Table Injury;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 9, 2018, Paula Tyson 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 Petitioner alleges she suffered a “Shoulder Injury Related
to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), which was caused by the influenza (“flu”)
vaccination she received in her right shoulder on February 8, 2017. Petition at
¶¶ 2 and 18. 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-00975-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 3
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on July 19, 2019. ECF No. 19. In his
report, Respondent argued that Petitioner had not met her burden of establishing that
the onset of her alleged shoulder injury occurred within 48 hours of her February 8,
2017 flu vaccination. Id. at 5-6. In a Scheduling Order filed on August 23, 2019, then-
Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey reported that she had reviewed the record and
determined that a fact hearing or briefing would not be necessary. ECF No. 20. A
deadline was set for closing the record on the matter of onset. Id. Pursuant to the
scheduling order, Petitioner submitted affidavits from three fact witnesses. ECF Nos. 21
and 23
On October 25, 2019, I issued a Findings of Fact Ruling, finding that there is
preponderant evidence to establish “that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder injury
occurred within 48 hours of her February 8, 2017 flu vaccination.” Fact Ruling at 5
(ECF No. 25). Respondent was ordered to file an amended Rule 4 Report reflecting
Respondent’s position in light of the above finding of fact. Id. at 5.
On January 19, 2020, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4 report indicating
that, “while preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s October 25, 2019
Findings of Fact [that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder injury began within 48
hours of receipt of the flu vaccine], respondent submits that petitioner has otherwise
satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids
to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA . . . .” Rule 4 Report at 2. Specifically, respondent
found that
Based on the Chief Special Master’s fact ruling, and medical record
evidence submitted in this case, DICP will not continue to contest that
petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.
Specifically, petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her right shoulder; the onset of pain and limited motion
occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the
pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered;
and, no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been
identified to explain petitioner’s right shoulder pain. In addition, petitioner
suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.
Id. at 3 (footnote omitted). Respondent adds 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 . . . .” and
further advises that “he will not defend the case on other grounds during further
proceedings before the Office of Special Masters.” Id.3
3 Respondent further clarifies that he is not waiving “any defenses that [he] may assert in the damages
phase.” Rule 4 Report at 3 n. 2.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 3
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner
is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00975-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-25
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/20/2020) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-975V
UNPUBLISHED
PAULA D. TYSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 20, 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)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 9, 2018, Paula D. Tyson 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 right shoulder injuries related to
vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on
February 8, 2017. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine
in the United States, her injuries and sequelae lasted more than six months, no action
has been filed for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury, nor has she received any
compensation in the form of award or settlement for her vaccine-related injuries.
Petition at 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
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-00975-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 5
On January 13, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On July 17, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $81,211.46.
Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that 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 $81,211.46 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-00975-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
PAULA D. TYSON,
)
)
Petitioner,
) No. 18-975V
v.
) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
)
SERVICES,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On October 25, 2019, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Findings of Fact, finding
that the onset of petitioner’s right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF No. 25 at 2, 5. On January 9, 2020, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report
advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that the onset
of petitioner’s right 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. ECF No. 30 at 3-4. Thereafter, on
January 13, 2020, Chief Special Master Corcoran entered a Ruling on Entitlement, finding
petitioner, Paula D. Tyson, entitled to Vaccine Act compensation for her Table SIRVA injury.
ECF No. 31.

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/25/20 Page 4 of 5
I. Amount of Compensation
Respondent now proffers that, based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision
and the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded $81,211.46.1 This amount represents
all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made as
described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s damages decision and the Court’s
judgment award the following: 2
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
Through a lump sum of $81,211.46 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).
Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
ETHAN P. DAVIS
Acting Assistant Attorney General
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the
Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties waive
their 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 January 13,
2020, 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 medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00975-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/25/20 Page 5 of 5
C.SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Traci R. Patton
TRACI R. PATTON
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Telephone: (202) 353-1589
Dated: July 17, 2020
3