VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00282
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00282
Petitioner: Clara Fitzgerald
Filed: 2019-02-22
Decided: 2021-03-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-31
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 57960

AI-assisted case summary:
Clara Fitzgerald filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 22, 2019, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine administered on October 31, 2017. Initially, Respondent opposed compensation, arguing that Petitioner had not provided evidence of intramuscular administration. However, a subsequent finding of fact established that the vaccine was administered intramuscularly. Following this, Respondent filed an amended report conceding entitlement, recognizing the injury as a Table injury for SIRVA. The Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement on December 22, 2020, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. On March 26, 2021, a decision awarding damages was issued, granting Petitioner a lump sum payment of $57,960.00, which included $57,500.00 for pain and suffering and $460.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner is a competent adult.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00282-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-12-03
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/03/2020) regarding 26 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-282V
UNPUBLISHED
Chief Special Master Corcoran
CLARA FITZGERALD,
Filed: November 3, 2020
Petitioner,
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Intramuscular
HUMAN SERVICES, Route of Administration; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDING OF FACT1
On February 22, 2019, Clara Fitzgerald 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 she received on
October 31, 2017. Petition at 1. 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 it 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-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner’s October 31, 2017 flu
vaccine was administered intramuscularly into Petitioner’s left deltoid.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On March 7, 2019, Petitioner filed medical records, an affidavit, and a Statement
of Completion. ECF Nos. 7-8. Following an initial status conference, Respondent was
directed to file a status report indicating how he intended to proceed in this case. ECF
No. 10. On April 23, 2020, Respondent did so, stating that he had completed a medical
review and was opposed to settlement discussions. ECF No. 20. Respondent thereafter
filed a Rule 4(c) Report on June 8, 2020. ECF No. 21.
In the Report, Respondent noted that, to establish a presumptive SIRVA injury,
Petitioner must specifically show that the vaccine was administered intramuscularly—i.e.,
injected into a muscle. Res. Report at 5. Petitioner’s vaccination record indicated that the
vaccine “was administered into [P]etitioner’s left deltoid,” but did not specify the route of
administration or otherwise provide information signifying whether the vaccine was given
intramuscularly. Id. Respondent therefore maintained that Petitioner could not establish
a presumptive SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table. Id.
On July 17, 2020, I issued a Scheduling Order noting that I had reviewed
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report as well as the evidence filed to date. ECF No. 22. I
permitted the parties to file briefing as well as any other relevant evidence pertaining to
the route of administration of Petitioner’s October 31, 2017 flu vaccination. Id. The parties
were informed that I would thereafter issue a factual ruling regarding this issue. Id.
Respondent filed his brief on August 31, 2020, reiterating that Petitioner’s
vaccination record does not specify the route of administration or manufacturer. Res. Brief
at 2 (ECF No. 23). Respondent deemed this lack of specificity significant because Sanofi
Pasteur (a vaccine manufacturer) produced a flu vaccine that could be administered
intradermally during the 2017-2018 flu season—the season Petitioner received the
vaccination at issue. Id. at 2-3.
Respondent further noted that Vaccine Program cases have made fact findings
regarding the route of vaccine administration in some recent cases. See, e.g., Dorris v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1265V, 2019 WL 7212165 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 13, 2019); Porzio v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1996V, 2019 WL
5290837 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2019). Res. Brief at 3. In both cases, intramuscular
administration was found to have occurred, partially because the vaccination records
recorded the vaccines as being administered into the deltoid, a muscle. Id. Respondent
argued, however, that such evidence is not dispositive regarding the route of
2

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 3 of 6
administration, since intradermal vaccines are also administered in the “region of the
deltoid.”3 Id.
Petitioner filed her own brief on August 31, 2020.4 ECF No. 25. In it, she cited the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, which states that most flu vaccines
are administered in an arm muscle with a needle, with the deltoid muscle specifically
recommended for routine adult intramuscular vaccination. Pet. Brief at 2. Petitioner
asserted that “the Vaccine Administration Record in this case makes clear that [P]etitioner
received the vaccination in her deltoid muscle.” Id. Petitioner also cited to the Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”) website, observing that none of the FDA-approved flu
vaccines during the 2017-2018 season were meant for intradermal use. Id. at 3-4.
The disputed issue of the route of administration of Petitioner’s October 31, 2017
flu vaccine is now ripe for resolution.
II. Medical Records
I have reviewed all the records filed to date. This ruling, however, is limited to
determining the route of administration of Petitioner’s October 31, 2017 flu vaccination.
Accordingly, I will only summarize or discuss evidence that directly pertains to this issue.
On October 31, 2017, Petitioner received a flu vaccine. Ex. 1 at 1. The vaccination
consent form lists Petitioner’s name and date of birth, and indicates she was administered
a quadrivalent form of the vaccine. Id. The form is signed and dated by Petitioner. Id. At
the bottom of the form there is a section marked “To be completed by person
administering vaccine.” Id. This section lists the date, lot number, and expiration date of
the vaccine, along with the name of the person who administered the vaccine. Id. This
section also contains the following text: “Site of Injection (Circle One): R Deltoid / L
Deltoid.” Id. “L Deltoid” (most likely meaning left deltoid) is circled. Id.
Three weeks post-vaccination, on November 21, 2017, Petitioner presented to
Sonita Singh, M.D., at George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates. Ex. 2
at 1. Petitioner reported that she had received a flu vaccine on October 31st, and then
started experiencing left arm pain two hours later that persisted. Id. Petitioner stated that
she thought the “nurse put the flu shot too high on her arm resulting in SIRVA.” Id.
Approximately a week later, on November 27, 2017, Petitioner underwent an initial
physical therapy evaluation. Ex. 3 at 14. Petitioner reported that she had received a flu
3 Respondent cited a vaccine administration instruction form from the “Immunization Action Coalition”
indicating that intradermal flu vaccines are administered in the “region of the deltoid.” Res. Brief at 3 n.2.
4 Petitioner has also filed an affidavit describing her previous efforts to obtain a more detailed vaccination
record. Ex. 9 (ECF No. 24).
3

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 4 of 6
vaccination that was “incorrectly placed and injected in the [left] shoulder bursa,” which
caused shoulder pain and associated symptoms. Id.
III. Analysis
A petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual
circumstances surrounding her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). Under that standard, the
existence of a fact must be shown to be “more probable than its nonexistence.” In re
Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
To establish a presumptive Table SIRVA injury, Petitioner must show that the
vaccine she received was administered intramuscularly—i.e., injected into a muscle. See
42 CFR § 100.3(c)(10) (“SIRVA manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion
occurring after the administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration
in the upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended injection
of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of the
shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction” (emphasis added)).
As noted by Respondent, the recent Porzio and Dorris rulings involved factual
disputes regarding the route of vaccine administration. In Porzio, Respondent argued (as
here) that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner’s flu vaccine was
administered intramuscularly, but the special master found otherwise. Porzio, 2019 WL
5290837, at *1. The vaccine administration record in that case stated that the vaccine
had been injected into the petitioner’s left deltoid. Id. at *3. In addition, the prescribing
information for the vaccine indicated that it was for intramuscular use (and thus should
not be administered intravenously, intradermally, or subcutaneously). Id. In addition, the
petitioner (a nurse practitioner) averred that she was sitting when the vaccine was
administered despite asking to stand, which makes it easier to correctly place an
intramuscular injection. Id. All such evidence was deemed preponderantly supportive of
Petitioner’s side of the dispute.
The outcome was the same in Dorris (a case I decided). There, the petitioner’s
vaccination record listed the site of injection as “left deltoid” but did not specifically indicate
whether the vaccine was administered intramuscularly. Dorris, 2019 WL 7212165, at *1.
At a post-vaccination medical appointment, however, the petitioner stated that the vaccine
was improperly administered in the upper shoulder area instead of the lateral, or side,
deltoid. Id. at *2. The petitioner also averred that the vaccine was administered unusually
high on the shoulder. Id. After Respondent requested a ruling regarding the route of
administration, I found that there was preponderant evidence of intramuscular
administration based on the information above. Id. at *1, 3.
The facts of this case are analogous to those in Porzio and Dorris. As already
noted, Petitioner’s vaccine administration record indicates that Petitioner’s vaccine was
administered into her left deltoid, a muscle. Ex. 1 at 1; see, e.g., Dorland’s Illustrated
4

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 5 of 6
Medical Dictionary (32nd ed. 2012) at 484 (defining deltoid as “triangular in outline, as the
deltoid muscle”). In addition, and like Porzio and Dorris, Petitioner later reported to her
medical providers that the vaccine had been administered high on her left arm, and she
believed the improper administration had resulted in injection of the vaccine into the
bursa. Taken together, these records support that Petitioner’s October 31, 2017 flu
vaccine was administered intramuscularly into her left deltoid.
Respondent has cited evidence suggesting that an intradermally-administered
version of the flu vaccine was in use during the period Petitioner received the vaccination
at issue. Respondent also notes that intradermal vaccines are administered in the “region
of the deltoid,” thus allowing for the possibility that (despite Petitioner’s allegations) a
version of the vaccine not literally covered by the Table SIRVA claim requirements was
at issue in this case. Res. Brief at 2-3.
These arguments are not, however, ultimately persuasive. Apart from the evidence
already discussed, I have observed through my work on other cases that the majority of
flu vaccines are administered intramuscularly into the deltoid muscle.5 It is also the case
that vaccination records produced in the Program frequently fail to identify the specific
form of administration deemed in this case dispositive by Respondent (meaning that huge
numbers of otherwise-meritorious Table SIRVA claims would require dismissal simply
because the record did not specify this issue). Under a preponderant standard, these
deficiencies are not a bar to entitlement where—like here—the overall evidence
preponderates in favor of the claim.6
IV. Conclusion
In light of the evidence supporting the conclusion that the flu vaccine Petitioner
received was administered intramuscularly, and lacking persuasive evidence supporting
any other route of administration, I find that it is more likely than not that Petitioner’s
October 31, 2017 flu vaccine was administered intramuscularly into her left deltoid.
Respondent shall file a status report, by no later than Friday, December 04, 2020,
indicating whether he is interested in exploring an informal resolution of Petitioner’s claim.
5 Respondent has suggested that an intradermally-administered version of the flu vaccine was in use during
the period Petitioner received the vaccination at issue. However, the mere possibility of an intradermally-
administered version does not defeat Petitioner’s preponderant showing in light of the other evidence
supporting her claim.
6 I have relied upon the available record evidence in addition to my accumulated experience adjudicating
Vaccine Act claims. See Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“Congress assigned to a group of specialists, the Special Masters within the Court of Federal Claims, the
unenviable job of sorting through these painful cases and, based upon their accumulated expertise in the
field, judging the merits of the individual claims”).
5

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 27 Filed 12/03/20 Page 6 of 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00282-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-02-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/22/2020) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-282V
UNPUBLISHED
CLARA FITZGERALD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 22, 2020
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.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 22, 2019, Clara Fitzgerald 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
October 31, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On June 8, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation.
ECF No. 21. Respondent asserted that Petitioner had not established a presumptive
SIRVA because she had not produced evidence documenting that the October 31, 2017
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 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 2
vaccine was administered intramuscularly. Id. at 5. A Finding of Fact was subsequently
issued on November 3, 2020, in which I found that Petitioner’s October 31, 2017 flu
vaccine was administered intramuscularly into her left deltoid. ECF No. 26.
On December 8, 2020, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report in which
he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s
Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that, “[r]ecognizing that the Chief
Special Master’s factual finding that the subject flu vaccination was administered
intramuscularly is the law of the case, [R]espondent advises that he will not defend the
case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special Masters.”3
Id. at 2.
Respondent notes that, “[i]n light of the Chief Special Master’s fact finding, and
medical record evidence submitted in this case, DICP will not continue to contest that
[P]etitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. Respondent
further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her 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
3 Respondent also reserved his right to a potential appeal of the factual ruling and maintained that a
finding of entitlement to compensation cannot be sustained if the Fact Finding is vacated or overturned on
appeal. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2 n.2.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00282-2
Date issued/filed: 2021-03-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/22/2021) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-282V
UNPUBLISHED
CLARA FITZGERALD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 22, 2021
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.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 22, 2019, Clara Fitzgerald 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
October 31, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On December 22, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On February 22, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $57,960.00.
Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
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 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 5
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 $57,960.00 (representing compensation in the amount of
$57,500.00 for pain and suffering and $460.00 for past unreimbursable expenses)
in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for
all damages that would be available under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
CLARA FITZGERALD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-282V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 22, 2019, Clara Fitzgerald (“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 she received on October 31, 2017. Petition at 1. On December 8, 2020,
respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report, following a fact finding by the Chief Special
Master regarding route of administration, where he chose not to defend this case under the terms
of the Vaccine Act for her SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 30. On December 22, 2020, the Chief
Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 31.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $57,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:19-vv-00282-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 5
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 $460.00. 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 following1: a lump sum payment of $57,960.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Clara Fitzgerald: $57,960.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Acting Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
1 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-00282-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 5
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Mollie D. Gorney
MOLLIE D. GORNEY
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-4029
DATED: February 22, 2021
3