VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00276
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00276
Petitioner: Julie Drumm
Filed: 2019-02-21
Decided: 2022-05-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-20
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 78637

AI-assisted case summary:
Julie Drumm filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 21, 2019, alleging that she suffered Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on October 20, 2017. She further alleged that her injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report on December 10, 2021, stating that they did not contest entitlement, recognizing that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and that she met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. On December 13, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Ms. Drumm entitled to compensation. On April 12, 2022, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, proposing a total award of $78,637.11, which included $77,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,137.11 for past unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Drumm agreed with the proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Ms. Drumm the sum of $78,637.11.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00276-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-10-13
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/09/2021) regarding 23 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0276V
UNPUBLISHED
JULIE DRUMM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 9, 2021
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 VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 21, 2019, Julie Drumm 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”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine she received on October 20,
2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
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 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On March 23, 2020, about 13 months after the case was initiated, Respondent
filed a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to
compensation. ECF No. 17. Respondent specifically maintained that “[t]he current case
record does not contain preponderant evidence to establish that petitioner’s shoulder pain
began within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Therefore, there is no objective evidence
to support her bare allegation that her shoulder pain began in close temporal proximity to
her vaccination.”3 Id. at 6.
On June 26, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit and affidavits from her
husband and children. ECF No. 19. The same day, she filed a Motion for a Ruling on the
Record seeking a fact ruling on the issue of onset. ECF No. 20. On July 27, 2020,
Respondent filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 21) and on August 3, 2020,
Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s response. ECF No. 22. The issue of onset is ripe
for a fact ruling.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
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). The Federal Circuit has said that
Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
3 Respondent also argued that Petitioner’s pain was not limited to her left shoulder and radiated into her
elbow. ECF No. 17 at 6. However, only the issue of onset is ripe for decision.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 9
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).
The Federal Circuit recently stressed, however, that records enjoy no automatic
presumption of accuracy, despite their “trustworthy” evidentiary character. Kirby v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Indeed, “medical
records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998); see also Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475 at *19 (“written records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”).
The Court has 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).
Thus, 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).
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.
3

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 9
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare not only the medical
records and testimony, but also all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the
record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 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). And
although later oral testimony that conflicts with medical records is less reliable as a
general matter, it is appropriate for a special master to credit a petitioner’s lay testimony
where is does not conflict with the contemporaneous records. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1382-
84.
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the following findings after a complete review of the record, including all
medical records and affidavits, the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report, and the
arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, and the arguments in the
response and reply thereto. I find the following points to be particularly relevant:
 Petitioner is a trained nurse and worked as a school nurse in Edmond Public
Schools. Petition at 1, Ex. 9 at ¶3.
 Petitioner’s medical records from prior to her vaccination reveal asthma,
right elbow pain/tendonitis, and a heart condition, but no injuries to or
medical issues with her left shoulder or arm. See Ex. 2, 3, 5.
 Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left deltoid at her primary care
physician (“PCP”) in Edmond, Oklahoma, on October 20, 2017. Ex.1 at 1;
Ex. 2.
 Petitioner recalled that “[i]mmediately upon receiving the flu vaccine in my
left arm, I felt pain as it was being administered. I rubbed my shoulder as to
relieve the pain but the pain remained a constant, and it was very sore.” Ex.
6 at ¶2.
 Petitioner stated that on the day she received her flu shot, her husband and
children received flu shots as well. Ex. 9 at ¶1. She stated that she
remembered walking out to the car after the vaccination and asking her son
4

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 9
whether his arm hurt. Id. Petitioner’s husband and children4 submitted
affidavits on June 26, 2020, almost three years after Petitioner’s
vaccination. ECF No. 19.
 Petitioner stated that she “knew I would have some soreness after receiving
the flu shot as I have received the flu vaccine before, so I thought that this
pain would go away.” Ex. 6 at ¶3. Petitioner stated that she “had never
before heard of a SIRVA or knew of a case where an intramuscular injection
could do such damage.” Ex. 9 at ¶3. She believed “the pain and range of
motion problems I was experiencing would likely go away on its own and
that is why I did not immediately seek out medical attention.” Id. Petitioner
sought medical treatment when she “could no longer stand the pain.” Ex. 6
at ¶9.
 There is nothing in the records that suggest that Petitioner sought or
received treatment for her shoulder pain or any other medical issue during
the time between her vaccination and when she first sought treatment for
her left shoulder pain.
 Petitioner first sought medical treatment for her left shoulder pain from her
PCP, Dr. Joseph Jamison, on March 7, 2018 - 138 days, or approximately
four and one-half months after her vaccination. Ex. 2 at 186. She reported
“left upper arm pain since getting her flu shot on 10/20/17.” Id. She
described progressively worsening pain and decreased strength and range
of motion. Id. Dr. Jamison noted “decreased range of motion on abduction
and external rotation,” tenderness, and “4/5 weakness of deltoid muscle on
abduction.” Id. at 187. He diagnosed Petitioner with chronic left shoulder
pain and adverse effect of influenza vaccine and prescribed physical
therapy and Mobic. Id. at 188.
 Ms. Drumm began physical therapy on March 16, 2018. Ex. 5 at 170. At her
initial evaluation, she stated that her pain began after a vaccination,5
explaining that the shot “hurt going in and the pain never went away.” Id.
She explained that she “kept thinking it would go away.” Id. Upon
examination, Petitioner had positive impingement tests (Hawkin’s and
Empty can), decreased strength, and reduced range of motion (“ROM”). Id.
4 It is not clear from the record whether Petitioner’s children were minors or adults at the time they signed
their affidavits on June 26, 2020. See Ex. 11, 12, 13, ECF No. 19.
5 The record notes the date of the vaccination as October 23, 2017, not October 20, 2017. Ex. 5 at 166.
5

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 9
at 172-74. Petitioner attended 7 physical therapy sessions through June 27,
2018. Ex. 5.
 On June 28, 2018, Petitioner presented to Dr. Jamison for her annual
physical. Ex. 2 at 198. At that visit, Dr. Jamison ordered an MRI of
Petitioner’s left shoulder,6 which was done on July 19, 2018. Id. at 198, 236.
The MRI revealed mild degenerative shoulder changes. Id. at 236.
 On July 30, 2018, she presented to Mark Patrick Stout, a physician’s
assistant (“PA”), in the orthopedic clinic. Ex. 4 at 8. Petitioner reported “left
shoulder pain that began after receiving an influenza vaccination.” Id. She
stated that she had had only “minimal improvement” from physical therapy.
Id. PA Stout noted “tenderness to palpitation over the deltoid and lateral
aspect of the shoulder,” decreased range of motion, and positive
impingement tests. Id. PA Stout diagnosed rotator cuff tendonitis. Id. at 12.
Petitioner received a steroid injection, a prescription for Mobic, and was
advised to continue physical therapy. Id. Petitioner returned to physical
therapy for one session on August 15, 2018. Ex. 3 at 128.
 Petitioner returned to PA Stout on August 27, 2018 reporting good relief
from the previous steroid injection. Ex. 4 at 24. Examination revealed
reduced pain, increased range of motion, and negative or only mildly
positive impingement tests. Id. at 24, 26. Petitioner returned to PA Stout on
October 3, 2018 complaining of worsening symptoms. Ex. 4 at 37. Petitioner
received her second steroid injection. Id. She returned to orthopedics on
November 19, 2018, seeing Dr. Thaddeus Carnine, who noted full range of
motion, normal rotator cuff strength, and only mild tenderness. Id.
 Petitioner returned to PA Stout on February 21, 2019, reporting that her left
shoulder pain had gradually returned to a level of 4/10 and worse with
movement. Ex. 7 at 1. Petitioner had “positive findings of shoulder
impingement” and received a third steroid injection. Id. Petitioner returned
Dr. Carnine on June 11, 2019. Ex. 8 at 1. Dr. Carnine noted that Petitioner
had “full range of motion, but does have impingement findings and positive
crossover.” Id. He and Petitioner discussed surgical intervention but left
future treatment up to her on an as needed basis. Id.
6 The record of the June 28, 2018 visit does not reveal any left shoulder examination or treatment. Ex. 2 at
206-10. Petitioner stated that she emailed Dr. Jamison after three physical therapy sessions asking for an
MRI of her shoulder, however, there are no email communications in the record. Ex. 6 at ¶12.
6

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 9
The primary issue with Petitioner’s claim of onset within 48 hours after her flu
vaccination is the length of time between her vaccination and her first report of left
shoulder pain to a medical professional. Petitioner waited just under five months to seek
treatment for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 186. I have previously commented that it is
reasonable to expect that an average claimant “might seek medical treatment sooner if in
fact the person was experiencing sudden post-vaccination pain.” Pitts v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 18-1512V, 2020 WL 2959421, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 29,
2020).
At the same time, however, there are a variety of reasonable explanations for why
a claimant might delay treatment – and thus delay does not automatically preclude a
Table onset finding. Petitioner’s case is similar to the petitioner in Winkle v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0485, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
3, 2021) (finding onset within 48 hours where petitioner sought treatment for the first time
nearly five months after vaccination). Like the petitioner in Winkle, although there was a
longer-than-average delay in seeking treatment for her shoulder pain, Ms. Drumm did not
seek treatment for any medical issue during the period between her vaccination on
October 20, 2017 and her first report of shoulder pain. “Such intervening treatment
evidence can in many cases either corroborate a petitioner's claim or undermine it – but
it is totally absent here.” Winkle, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4.
Once Petitioner sought treatment, her contemporaneous medical records reveal
repeated consistent reports of onset of pain at the time of vaccination. See Winkle, 2021
WL 2808993, at *4 (noting that petitioner’s consistent statements to treatment providers
should be afforded substantial weight as they were made contemporaneously and for the
purpose of obtaining medical treatment). Thus, at her first visit with Dr. Jamison on March
7, 2018, Petitioner complained of left upper arm pain since getting her flu shot on
10/20/17.” Ex. 2 at 186. In fact, Dr. Jamison diagnosed Petitioner with “adverse effect of
influenza vaccine.”7 Id. at 188. Next, Petitioner presented for physical therapy treatment.
Ex. 5 at 170. While I acknowledge that the initial physical therapy record erroneously
states that the vaccination was on October 23, 2017, the physical therapist recorded that
Petitioner stated the shot “hurt going in and the pain never went away.” Id. The totality of
the record shows that Petitioner’s pain began with the vaccination, even if the date was
recorded incorrectly. Finally, when Petitioner presented to the orthopedic clinic on July
30, 2018, she reported “left shoulder pain that began after receiving an influenza
vaccination.” Ex. 4 at 8. Without exception, Petitioner stated that her pain began at the
time of vaccination.
7 Petitioner stated that Dr. Jamison also filed a VAERS report after that first visit, however, no VAERS report
appears in the filed records. Ex. 6 at ¶9.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 9
Petitioner’s affidavit testimony is consistent with her contemporaneous medical
records regarding the onset of her pain. As she also told her medical providers, Ms.
Drumm alleges that “[i]mmediately upon receiving the flu vaccine in my left arm, I felt pain
as it was being administered. I rubbed my shoulder as to relieve the pain but the pain
remained a constant, and it was very sore.” Ex. 6 at ¶2. She recalled “walking out to the
car with her son Benjamin,” who also received a flu shot that day, asking “him if his arm
hurt.” Ex. 9 at ¶1-2. The Federal Circuit has held that it is appropriate to credit the lay
testimony of a petitioner when said testimony does not conflict with the medical records.
Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1384. Petitioner’s affidavit testimony provides consistent detail to the
more general statements noted in the medical records.
I also find Petitioner’s explanation for her delay to be reasonable and credible. See,
e.g., Stevens v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs, No. 90-221, 1990 WL 608693, *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. 1990) (noting that clear, cogent, and consistent testimony can overcome
missing or contradictory medical records). Petitioner, who is a nurse, did not believe a
vaccine could cause “such damage” to her shoulder. Ex. 9 at ¶3. She stated that she had
received flu vaccines in the past and knew that some soreness was normal. Ex. 6 at ¶3.
She believed that her symptoms would resolve on their own and sought treatment once
she could “no longer stand the pain.” Ex. 9 at ¶3, Ex. 6 at ¶9. In fact, Petitioner’s physical
therapist noted at her initial visit on March 16, 2018 that Petitioner had stated that “she
kept thinking it would go away.” Ex. 5 at 166. Again, Petitioner’s affidavit testimony is
consistent with her statements recorded by her medical providers.
“It is common for a SIRVA petitioner to delay treatment, thinking his/her injury will
resolve on its own.” Winkle, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4. Further, it is common for medical
professionals who may have been injured by a vaccination to monitor their own condition
and self-treat while delaying formal medical treatment. See, e.g., Rayborn v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0226, 2019 WL 4447391, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
7, 2019). While delay does go to the question of damages (since it establishes that overall
severity of the pain was not so great that Petitioner did not feel she could manage it on
her own) – and I will take it into account if this case goes to damages – it does not
eliminate the possibility of a timely Table onset.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
The following is ORDERED: Respondent shall file, by Thursday, October
14, 2021, a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in this case in light
of the record and this fact ruling. The status report shall indicate whether he is
8

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 9
willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding settlement or proffer or
remains opposed to negotiating at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00276-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/13/2021) regarding 29 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 32 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0276V
UNPUBLISHED
JULIE DRUMM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 13, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 21, 2019, Julie Drumm 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 Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (‘SIRVA’), resulting from adverse effects of an
influenza (‘flu’) vaccination she received on October 20, 2017.” Petition at 1. Petitioner
further alleges that her injury lasted for more than six months. Petition at 2. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 32 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 2
On December 10, 2021, Respondent filed an 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 Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states:
[r]ecognizing that the Chief Special Master’s factual finding that the onset
of petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within forty-eight hours of her
vaccination is the law of the case, respondent advises that he will not defend
the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of
Special Masters. While preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special
Master’s September 9, 2021 Findings of Facts, 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 Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (‘SIRVA’). See 42 C.F.R §§
100.3(a)(XIV) and (c)(10). Respondent requests a ruling on the record
regarding petitioner’s entitlement to compensation.
Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner meets the criteria for SIRVA as defined
by the Vaccine Table and does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 6-7.
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_19-vv-00276-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-05-23
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/12/2022) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0276V
UNPUBLISHED
JULIE DRUMM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 12, 2022
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)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 21, 2019, Julie Drumm 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 Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (‘SIRVA’), resulting from adverse effects of an
influenza (‘flu’) vaccination she received on October 20, 2017.” Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 13, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On April 12, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded a total of
$78,637.11, representing $77,500.00 in pain and suffering and $1,137.11 in past
unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 2. 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/23/22 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 $78,637.11 (representing $77,500.00 in pain and suffering and
$1,137.11 in past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of 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 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
JULIE DRUMM,
Petitioner,
No. 19-276V
v.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 21, 2019, Julie Drumm (“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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine on October 20, 2017. Petition at 1.
On December 10, 2021, 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 left shoulder 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 6 (ECF #28). On December 13, 2021, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued
a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her
SIRVA.1 See Ruling on Entitlement (ECF #29).
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 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $77,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,137.11. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 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 petitioner 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 following: a lump sum payment of $78,637.11, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.2
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
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 December 13, 2021, 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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00276-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Adriana Teitel
ADRIANA TEITEL
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-3677
Email: adriana.teitel@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 12, 2022
3