VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01197
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01197
Petitioner: Susan Mogavero
Filed: 2018-08-13
Decided: 2020-10-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-09-23
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 110451

AI-assisted case summary:
Susan Mogavero filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on August 13, 2018, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 23, 2016. The respondent conceded that the alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA caused by the flu vaccine and that there were no other identified causes. The respondent also agreed that the petitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months. On June 9, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Ms. Mogavero entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on September 16, 2020, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, proposing an award of $110,451.33, comprising $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $451.33 for past out-of-pocket medical expenses. Ms. Mogavero, a competent adult, agreed with the proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding the lump sum payment of $110,451.33.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01197-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-06-11
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/12/2020) regarding 38 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1197V
UNPUBLISHED
SUSAN MOGAVERO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 12, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Theodore J. Hong, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On August 13, 2018, Susan Mogavero 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 shoulder injuries related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received in her left
shoulder on September 23, 2016. 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 the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more
likely than not administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder.
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-01197-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 5
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted, the matter was initiated in August 2018. A year later, on August 2, 2019,
Respondent moved to stay the deadline for his Rule 4(c) report (ECF No. 21). Respondent
stated that he had determined that Petitioner could satisfy all but one of the requirements
for a Table SIRVA injury. Id. Specifically, although Petitioner alleged a left shoulder
SIRVA from the flu vaccine administered on September 23, 2016, the record indicated
that the vaccine was in fact administered in her right shoulder on that date. Id. (citing Ex.
1 at 3).
In reaction, Petitioner filed documentary materials in support of her claim. Thus,
on October 7, 2019, Petitioner filed Exhibits 15-19, including an amended vaccine
administration record, supplemental affidavits from Petitioner, her husband, and her
sister, as well as a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”) form completed
on November 20, 2016 (ECF No. 25). On November 25, 2019, Petitioner filed Exhibits
20-23 and a Statement of Completion (ECF Nos. 27-28).
On January 6, 2020, Respondent filed a status report stating that he had again
reviewed the claim, including the newly-filed evidence, and that his position remained
unchanged (ECF No. 29). On February 4, 2020, a status conference was held and the
parties agreed that Petitioner would file a motion for a finding of fact (ECF No. 31).
Petitioner did so on February 13, 2020 (ECFF No. 32), and Respondent reacted to the
motion on March 11, 2020 (ECF No. 34). On March 18, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply (ECF
No. 36). The issue of the site of Petitioner’s September 23, 2016 flu vaccination is now
ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her left
arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), 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
2

Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 5
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
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).
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
The following finding of fact is based on a complete review of the record, including
all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I highlight the
following:
3

Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 5
• Ex. 2 at 19, a record of Petitioner’s October 12, 2016 visit to her Nurse
Practitioner (NP) Nicolas for a chief complaint of “L arm pain s/p [status
post, or following] flu shot 3 weeks ago.” The record further states, “On
9/27/16 she was given a flu shot to her left deltoid.”
• Ex. 2 at 4, a record of Petitioner’s April 18, 2017 visit to Dr. Alberton for left
shoulder pain noting that the “problem began 9/23/2016” and that her “pain
started after she received a flu shot in the left shoulder.”
• Ex. 5 at 17, a physical therapy patient intake form for left shoulder pain
listing the date of injury as “9/23/16” and stating that a “flu vaccination”
caused the present injury/symptoms.
• Ex. 5 at 19, December 8, 2016 record of a shoulder evaluation listing “Flu
shot (9/23/16)” as the onset date and listing a diagnosis of “L deltoid strain.”
• Ex. 8 at ¶ 2, Petitioner’s affidavit, stating “I received an influenza vaccination
in my left arm on September 23, 2016.” Petitioner further explained that
when the nurse came into the room to give her the flu shot on that date, the
nurse asked which arm was Petitioner’s dominant arm, to which she
responded her right arm, and the nurse then gave the shot in Petitioner’s
left arm. Id. at ¶ 5. Petitioner also averred that she felt “sharp and aching
pain in [her] left shoulder the moment [she] received the flu vaccination.” Id.
at ¶ 6.
• Ex. 15, Petitioner’s supplemental affidavit, which is consistent with her
original affidavit, Ex. 8, as to the site of vaccination. Specifically, Petitioner
again averred that on the date of vaccination, the nurse asked her which
arm was her dominant arm, and then administered the flu shot in her left
arm, the opposite arm. Ex. 15 at ¶ 6. Petitioner further averred that she
“immediately felt sharp and aching pain in my left shoulder the moment I
received the flu shot.” Id. at ¶ 7. Petitioner explained that when she arrived
home, she told her husband “about the pain that I felt in my left shoulder
following the flu shot that I was given earlier that day.” Id. at ¶ 8.
• Ex. 16 at ¶ 7, affidavit of Petitioner’s husband Dominic Mogavero,
explaining that the evening of Petitioner’s vaccination she had to lie on her
right side to sleep rather than her left side as usual. He explained that he
remembers this because “I sleep on the right side of the bed and Susan on
the left side. We are both side sleepers whereby we face each other as we
go to sleep because I naturally sleep on the right side of my body and Susan
on the left side of her body. However, on the evening of September 23,
2016, we were not facing each other as we went to bed because Susan had
to lie on her right side facing the wall.” Id.
• Ex. 17 at ¶ 5, affidavit of Petitioner’s younger sister Sonia Estrada, stating
that on the weekend of either September 24-25 or October 1-2, 2016,
Petitioner told her “that the flu shot she recently received in her left arm was
4

Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 5
causing a lot of pain in her shoulder and arm. I recall her being visibly in
pain that day because of her left shoulder.” Ms. Estrada further averred that
over the next several weeks, Petitioner “kept telling about the worsening
pain in her left shoulder on a regular basis . . . . She would ask me to gently
pull or hold onto her left arm so that she could stretch the arms in her left
shoulder.”
• Ex. 18, a VAERS form completed by Petitioner on November 20, 2016 (and
thus two months post-vaccination), indicating “[r]eceived flu vaccination on
9/23/16 at 4:45PM. Left arm became sore and unmovable for the next two
days.”
Based on the above medical entries, the preponderance of the evidence supports
a finding that Petitioner’s September 23, 2016 flu vaccine was administered into her left
deltoid. The record of Petitioner’s October 12, 2016 visit to NP Nicolas for left shoulder
pain, noting that her flu shot was given in her left deltoid (Ex. 2 at 19), is particularly
persuasive. This record is from only 19 days after vaccination, and is the most
contemporaneous record other than the vaccine administration record itself. This record
is also persuasive because it records a visit to the same office where the flu vaccine was
administered.
I acknowledge that the vaccine administration record itself memorializes
administration of the flu vaccine in Petitioner’s right deltoid. Ex. 1 at 3. However, all other
medical records support a finding that the vaccine was actually administered in
Petitioner’s left arm. Moreover, I note that the original vaccine administration record
includes other clearly inaccurate information, including an indication that the vaccine
administered expired on January 1, 1900, and that the vaccine information sheet provided
to Petitioner was published on January 1, 1900. Pet. Ex. 1 at 3. And the health care
provider has now amended the vaccine administration record to indicate that the vaccine
was administered into Petitioner’s left deltoid. I find this further supports the additional
records indicating that the vaccine was administered into Petitioner’s left deltoid.
Accordingly, preponderant evidence establishes that the vaccination alleged as
causal in this case was more likely than not administered to Petitioner in the left deltoid
on September 23, 2016. Petitioner’s motion for a finding of fact on this issue is granted.
V. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Thursday, June 11, 2020, a status report
concerning how he intends to proceed, or his unfiled Rule 4(c) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01197-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/09/2020) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 45 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1197V
UNPUBLISHED
SUSAN MOGAVERO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 9, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Theodore J. Hong, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 13, 2018, Susan Mogavero 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 left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 23, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 9, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at
1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA that
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-01197-UNJ Document 45 Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 2
was caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccine on September 23, 2016.”
Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that he “did not identify any other causes for
petitioner’s SIRVA, and based on the medical records outlined [in the Rule 4(c) Report],
petitioner meets the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six
months.” Id.
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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01197-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-10-20
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/16/2020) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 56 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1197V
UNPUBLISHED
SUSAN MOGAVERO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 16, 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)
Theodore J. Hong, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 13, 2018, Susan Mogavero 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September
23, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
On June 9, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On September 16, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating that Petitioner should be awarded $110,451.33
(comprising $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $451.33 for past out of pocket medical
expenses). Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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-01197-UNJ Document 56 Filed 10/20/20 Page 2 of 4
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 $110,451.33 (comprising $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$451.33 for past out of pocket medical 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-01197-UNJ Document 56 Filed 10/20/20 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
*************************************
SUSAN MOGAVERO, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 18-1197V
* CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER CORCORAN
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*************************************
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On June 9, 2020, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, conceding that petitioner’s claim
meets the Table criteria for a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”)
injury. On that same day, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
the following, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment
award:
1. A lump sum payment of $110,000.00, which represents compensation for pain and
suffering, see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4); and
2. A payment of $451.33, which represents compensation for past out-of-pocket medical
expenses, see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1).

Case 1:18-vv-01197-UNJ Document 56 Filed 10/20/20 Page 4 of 4
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that petitioner be awarded a lump sum payment of $110,451.33, in the
form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
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
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ DEBRA A. FILTEAU BEGLEY
DEBRA A. FILTEAU BEGLEY
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Phone: (202) 616-4181
Dated: September 16, 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 pain
and suffering.
2