VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00296
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00296
Petitioner: G.C.
Filed: 2019-02-25
Decided: 2024-01-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50893

AI-assisted case summary:
G.C., a 67-year-old man, filed a petition for compensation on February 25, 2019, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that after receiving influenza and tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccinations on October 2, 2017, he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Petitioner stated that he experienced pain in his left arm the day after vaccination, and over the following weeks, his activities became increasingly limited due to pain when raising his arm. He had a non-contributory medical history. On February 15, 2018, approximately four months post-vaccination, G.C. presented to his primary care physician with a chief complaint of left arm pain, reporting it started after the vaccinations and that he could not abduct his left arm past 90 degrees. He was prescribed ibuprofen and shown home exercises. On April 26, 2018, an MRI of his left shoulder revealed a complete tear of the rotator cuff, early degenerative changes in the glenohumeral joint, and muscle and tendon impingement secondary to AC joint degenerative disease. On June 7, 2018, an orthopedic consultation confirmed a left full-thickness rotator cuff tear, and the recommendation was for physical therapy rather than surgery. G.C. filed a VAERS report on June 16, 2018, stating his left arm pain began on October 3, 2017. He began physical therapy on June 19, 2018, reporting pain ongoing since October 2017 following an injection that was "too high." He noted difficulty with reaching, carrying, and lifting, and sleeping on his shoulder. By July 12, 2018, after six PT visits, he had improved range of motion and joint mobility but still experienced tightness and reduced strength. On July 30, 2018, he reported improved pain and range of motion but still experienced pain when lifting heavy objects. The orthopedist noted the tear would not heal on its own. Respondent contested entitlement, primarily disputing the onset of symptoms within the required timeframe. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on August 9, 2022 (re-filed as redacted December 8, 2023), granting the petition, finding that G.C. had established the elements of a Table SIRVA claim, including onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination, despite a delay in seeking medical treatment. The parties were unable to resolve damages, leading to a hearing. In a Decision Awarding Damages dated December 8, 2023 (issued January 12, 2024), Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded G.C. $50,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $893.74 for past unreimbursed expenses, totaling $50,893.74. The injury was determined to be a Table SIRVA, and G.C. did not die from the vaccine-related injury. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and Respondent was represented by Naseem Kourosh of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner G.C., a 67-year-old male, received influenza and Tdap vaccinations on October 2, 2017. He alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) with onset of left arm pain the day after vaccination, progressing to limited activity and a complete rotator cuff tear confirmed by MRI on April 26, 2018. Respondent contested entitlement, focusing on the delay in seeking medical treatment and the absence of contemporaneous records within 48 hours of vaccination. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Petitioner established a Table SIRVA claim, determining that the onset of shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, supported by Petitioner's consistent reporting of the injury's origin to medical providers and affidavits, and noting that delays in seeking treatment are common in SIRVA cases and do not preclude a finding of onset. The Special Master found that Petitioner met all requirements for a Table SIRVA claim, including no prior shoulder pathology, no alternative cause, localized symptoms, no civil action, and residual effects for over six months. Damages were subsequently awarded on December 8, 2023 (issued January 12, 2024), totaling $50,893.74, comprising $50,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $893.74 for past unreimbursed expenses. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer, and Respondent by Naseem Kourosh.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00296-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-08
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/09/2022) regarding 51 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-296V
UNPUBLISHED
G.C., Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 9, 2022
v. Re-Filed as Redacted:
December 8, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Respondent. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine
and Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 25, 2019, G.C. 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
1 When this decision was originally filed, I advised my intent 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 (2018) (Federal
Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b),
Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This decision is being posted with Petitioner’s
name redacted to reflect his initials only. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive
changes have been made. This decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to
move for redaction.
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-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 9
(“SIRVA”) after receiving the influenza (“flu”) and tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccinations on October 2, 2017. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the
vaccinations were administered within the United States, that he suffered the residual
effects of his injury for more than six months after the administration of the vaccinations,
and that no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone,
including the petitioner, due to Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 9. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters, and
Respondent has contested entitlement.
For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the
record (ECF No. 48), because he has established the elements of a Table SIRVA claim.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately eleven months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report (Respondent’s Report) on January 28, 2020, opposing compensation.
ECF No. 34. Respondent only disputed that Petitioner had established onset of symptoms
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent’s Report at 6-8. On February 11,
2020, Petitioner filed a response to the Rule 4(c) Report addressing an agreed-upon
scrivener’s error for a medical visit that occurred prior to Petitioner’s vaccination. ECF No.
35.
On April 13, 2020, I ordered Petitioner to file any additional evidence that might be
relevant to Respondent’s assertions in Respondent’s Report, and/or supportive of his
onset arguments, among other things. ECF No. 36. Petitioner was also ordered to prepare
a settlement demand (taking into account litigative risk) to submit to Respondent. Id.
Petitioner filed the requested documentation, and on July 27, 2020, I ordered the parties
to begin settlement negotiations. On August 7, 2020, Respondent reported that he had
“reviewed [P]etitioner’s settlement demand and the evidence filed to date, is not
interested in settlement at this time, and requests that this case remain on a litigation
track.” ECF No. 44.
I then directed the parties to file briefs that would assist my resolution of the
disputed issues. Scheduling Order (NON PDF), Entered: 06/20/2021. On July 2, 2021,
Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record regarding onset and entitlement more
generally. ECF No. 48 (Br.). On August 6, 2021, Respondent filed a response, again
addressing only onset. ECF No. 49 (Resp.). On August 23, 2021, Petitioner filed a reply
to Respondent’s response. ECF No. 50 (Reply). The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 3 of 9
II. Relevant Factual Evidence
I have reviewed all of the medical records, affidavits, the petition, Respondent’s
Report, and the parties’ respective briefs, and find the following facts most relevant:
At the time of vaccination, G.C. was a 67-year-old who did some accounting work,
as well as piece work on auto electric modules for his son’s company. Ex. 11 at 1.
Petitioner had a non-contributory medical history. Id. Petitioner received both the flu and
Tdap vaccinations in his left deltoid on October 2, 2017. Ex. 1 at 1. In his affidavit, G.C.
stated that the vaccinations “seemed fairly routine” but that he “started to have pain in
[his] left arm the day after [his] vaccines.” Ex. 11 at 2. G.C. recalled that “[o]ver the next
several weeks, [his] activities became increasingly limited because [he] could not raise
[his] left arm above chest height without a lot of pain.” Id. at 2-3.
On October 19, 2017, G.C. was seen by his primary care physician (PCP) for
removal of actinic keratoses on the left ear, left temple, and nostril using cryotherapy. Ex.
2 at 22-23. On October 24, 2017, Petitioner received a prescription refill from his PCP,
which was sent electronically to a pharmacy. Id. at 20-21. There is no evidence that
Petitioner was seen in-person on this date. See id.
On February 15, 2018 (approximately four months post-vaccination), G.C.
presented to his PCP with a chief complaint of left arm pain. Ex. 2 at 18. The nurse’s
notes state: “Pt c/o left arm pain x4 months. He states he cannot lift the arm and has a
sharp pain in it. He states this started after he was given the influenza and Tdap shots in
both arm[s].” Id. On physical examination it was noted, Petitioner “CANNOT ABDUCT
LEFT ARM AT SHOULDER PAST 90 DEGREES NO ABNORMALITY ON PALPATION.”
Id. at 19. The plan stated, “[r]eviewed possible dx. Wants to avoid MRI for now. One refill
ibuprofen. I demonstrated rehab exercises that he will do at home. He will call and give
us an update in 1 month.” Id.
On April 20, 2018, and again on April 23, 2018, G.C. called his PCP’s office stating
“his L shoulder is not getting any better. Stated he is having a hard time raising it over his
head. Would like a referral for MRI.” Ex. 2 at 16-17. On April 25, 2018, G.C. sent a
message to his PCP via the Patient Portal. Ex. 2 at. 9. G.C. stated:
Hi Dr Baldwin, my arm is still bothering me and I would like to get an MRI
done on it. I talked with my insurance company and that is what they
recommended. The throbbing pain mostly at night has finally quit but it is
3

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 4 of 9
pretty much useless trying to lift anything above my chest or overhead with
my left arm; seems to lock up and the pain won't let me. I took most of the
[ibuprofen] (seventy) but quit as they were making me [drowsy] driving
home from work; afraid I was going to wreck and kill somebody. Did the
exercises the best I could but something is not right and I need to know
what it is.
Id. On April 26, 2018, G.C. underwent an MRI of his left shoulder. Id. at 6. The MRI
revealed, “Complete tear of the rotator cuff. Early degenerative changes in the
glenohumeral joint. Muscle and tendon impingement secondary to AC joint degenerative
disease.” Id.
On June 7, 2018, G.C. had an orthopedic surgery consultation. Ex. 2 at 1.
Petitioner reported that his left shoulder pain began after a flu and Tdap vaccinations. Id.
It was noted that Petitioner “had had a previous episode where he didn’t tolerate injections
well and had normally tried to avoid injections. Because of this, he states he has filed a
claim related to shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.” Id. The impression was
a left full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Id. The recommendation states,
Since he hasn’t done well with medical treatment, and with pending
litigation, surgical outcomes are typically less beneficial, and certainly he
seems to have had more than his share of untoward reactions.
Consequently, I have explained to him that he can get relief of symptoms
with physical therapy by strengthening the muscles that are still intact,
without taking on any of the risks of surgical treatment. He would like to try
this and consequently was provided with a prescription for physical therapy
two times per week and then I will plan to see him back in one month, to
see if this is proving to be of any benefit.
Id.
On June 16, 2018, G.C. filed a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Report. Ex. 6 at 1. On the VAERS Report, Petitioner reported that his left arm pain began
on October 3, 2017. Id. at 1-2.
On June 19, 2018, Petitioner had his initial physical therapy (PT) visit, and reported
pain that had been ongoing since October 2017, following what he reported was an
injection into his shoulder that was too high. Ex. 5 at 9. Petitioner reported that he lost a
lot of range of motion and strength overall. Id. Petitioner indicated that “lately he feels like
his shoulder is improving functionally, however he is rather frustrated with the situation
4

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 5 of 9
and is upset with not being able to complete all tasks that he normally would have.
[Patient] has most difficulty with reaching, carrying, and lifting as well as sleeping on his
shoulder. [Patient] denies any numbness or tingling, and reports no surgeries or trauma
to his shoulder other than what was reported.” Id. The evaluation states that Petitioner
would benefit from PT to improve range of motion, strength, and overall function. Id. at
10. By July 12, 2018, Petitioner had six PT visits, and he had full range of motion and
better joint mobility. Ex. 5 at 12-13. He still had some tightness in the posterior capsule,
and his strength was not where it had been prior to injury. Id.
On July 30, 2018, G.C. returned to the orthopedist, reporting that although his pain
had not completely resolved, it was much improved resulting in better sleep and
significantly better range of motion. Id. Additionally, G.C. reported pain while lifting
anything of appreciable weight from a height, but was not having to take any medicine on
a routine basis. Id. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner’s tear would not heal on its own,
and even if symptoms subside there is a possibility of extending the tear and losing more
function. Id. Petitioner was noted to be very pleased with therapy and decided to continue
on an independent exercise program. Id. Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on October
4, 2018, noting that his pain had markedly decreased and he was sleeping better,
however, he was still not able to sleep on his right side. Ex. 10 at 1. According to
Petitioner, he continues to have difficulties with his left shoulder. Br. at 10.
Petitioner provided two affidavits and supporting affidavits from seven family
members, friends, and coworkers regarding the onset his pain. Exs. 11, 13-15, 19-23.
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 Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
5

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 6 of 9
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. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
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).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] ... did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
6

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 7 of 9
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. Findings of Fact Regarding Onset
Respondent maintains that the record does not demonstrate by preponderant
evidence the onset of Petitioner’s alleged SIRVA injury within the timeframe required by
the Vaccine Injury Table (Table). Resp. at 1. In particular, “the medical records indicate
that [P]etitioner did not report or receive medical treatment for complaints of shoulder pain
until four months after vaccination – despite seeing his primary care physician for two
visits during the intervening four months.” Id. at 2. Respondent further argues that
Petitioner relies on medical records which reflect histories reported by Petitioner more
than four months after vaccination, and are thus based on the claims of Petitioner. Id.
Finally, Respondent argues that Petitioner “relies upon his declarations and those of his
family members, friends, and coworkers – all created during the course of this litigation
and filed both before and after [R]espondent’s Report – to establish what the
contemporaneous medical records do not: that his shoulder pain began within 48 hours
of vaccination.” Id.
Respondent’s arguments are unpersuasive, for several reasons. First, he
effectively suggests that to establish a Table injury, a petitioner must obtain medical care
for his shoulder pain within the first 48 hours after vaccination. But the Vaccine Act does
not impose such a requirement. See Section 13(b)(2) (permitting a special master to find
onset “even though the occurrence of such symptom was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such time period,” and only requiring a
preponderance of the evidence) (emphasis added); see also Stevens v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 90-221V, 1990 WL 608693, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 1990) (noting
that clear, cogent, and consistent testimony can overcome missing or even contradictory
medical records). In this case, Petitioner consistently associated his shoulder pain with
receiving the Tdap and flu vaccinations in his left arm, and consistently reported to his
physicians that he began experiencing shoulder pain after receiving the vaccinations. See
e.g., Ex. 2 at 18 Ex. 4 at 4. Thus, the mere fact that no record within 48 hours of
vaccination confirms the onset does not preclude a finding on this issue in Petitioner’s
favor.
Second, Respondent argues that Petitioner saw his PCP for two visits during the
intervening four months between his vaccination and the date of first reporting. Resp. at
2. Thus, the fact that pain was not reported on these occasions undermines Petitioner’s
onset argument.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 8 of 9
The relevant records, however, are not as supportive of this argument as
Respondent contends. For example, there is no evidence that second intervening visit on
October 24, 2017, was an in-person visit with a physician, but instead appears merely to
have been for a prescription refill. See Ex. 2 at 20-21. And the other intervening
appointment - on October 19, 2017, for cryotherapy for lesions on his face (Ex. 2 at 22)
was solely for that purpose. Reply at 3 citing Murphy v. Sec’y of HHS, 23 C. Ct. 726, 733
(Fed. Cl. 1991) (aff’d 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A single intervening medical
encounter where only one issue was addressed is not enough to disprove onset. Certainly
that record does not negate the onset argument directly (e.g. by referencing no shoulder
complaint).
I also do not conclude that Petitioner’s treatment delay undermines his onset
assertions. Petitioner’s medical records and affidavits reflect a pattern similar to other
SIRVA claims, in which injured parties reasonably delay treatment, often based on the
assumption that their pain is likely transitory. See, e.g., Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30,
2018), mot. for review denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019), (finding a 48-hour onset of
shoulder pain despite a nearly six-month delay in seeking treatment); Williams v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 17-830V, 2019 WL 1040410, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
31, 2019) (noting a delay in seeking treatment for five-and-a-half months because
petitioner underestimated the severity of her shoulder injury); Knauss v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 16-1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2018)
(noting a three-month delay in seeking treatment). When Petitioner reported his pain, he
even stated that he had been trying to “tough it out.” Ex. 2 at 18. The temporal delay is
not lengthy enough to cast doubt on a shorter onset.
Respondent goes on to contend that the later medical records identifying a short
onset timeframe represent only Petitioner’s own claims regarding onset. Rule 4(c) Report
at 6; Response at 1-2 (citing Section 13(a)(1); Lett v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 39
Fed. Cl. 259 (1997)). As I have previously recognized,3 however, Lett is inapposite,
because the petitioners therein failed to obtain any medical records that demonstrated
that their minor child had experienced the alleged injury at any time, much less within the
timeframe for a Table injury. 39 Fed. Cl. at 262. Moreover, the Lett petitioners’ expert
neurologist conceded that he could not identify any events that could have represented
seizures, based on either the Table definition or his own medical knowledge. Id. In
denying the petitioners’ motion for review, the Court of Federal Claims stressed that there
3 Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1384V, 2021 WL 6285638 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2,
2021); Hartman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1106V, 2021 WL 4823549, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 14, 2021).
8

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 71 Filed 12/08/23 Page 9 of 9
was “no corroborating evidence that [their minor child] ever suffered a seizure.” Id. at 262-
63. This is distinguishable from a medical provider’s later documentation of the injury
alleged and acceptance of the petitioner’s history of the inciting circumstances. Such
“information supplied to… health professionals” is presumed to be trustworthy, especially
in the absence of evidence supporting a different onset or a different precipitating event.
Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528.
For the foregoing reasons, G.C. has established that he suffered the onset of
shoulder pain within 48 hours after vaccination.
V. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
In light of the lack of other objections and my own review of the record, I find that
Petitioner has established the other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. Specifically,
there is not a history of prior shoulder pathology that would explain her injury. 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(3)(10)(i). There is no evidence of any other condition or abnormality that
represents an alternative cause. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(3)(10)(iii). The medical records and
affidavits support that his shoulder pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the
left shoulder. C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(3)(10)(iv). The contemporaneous vaccination record
reflects the site of administration as his left deltoid. Ex. 1; Sections 11(c)(1)(A) and (B)(i).
Petitioner has not pursued a civil action or other compensation. Ex. 12; Section
11(c)(1)(E). Finally, Petitioner suffered the residual effects for more than six months after
vaccination. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the
Vaccine Act.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. A subsequent order will set further proceedings towards resolving
damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00296-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-12
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/08/2023) regarding 70 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-296V
G.C., Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 8, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 25, 2019, G.C. 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 alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the influenza (“flu”) and tetanus diphtheria
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccinations on October 2, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
Although I determined that Petitioner was entitled to compensation under the Vaccine
Act, the parties could not resolve damages on their own, and therefore their dispute was
submitted for resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $50,893.74, representing $50,000.00 for actual past pain
and suffering, plus $893.74 for past unreimbursed expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately eleven months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report on January 28, 2020, opposing compensation. ECF No. 34. On March
28, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record, and on August 9, 2022, I
issued a ruling on entitlement finding that Petitioner provided preponderant evidence
satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA, and thus was entitled to compensation.
ECF Nos. 48, 51.
The parties thereafter attempted to informally resolve damages but were
unsuccessful, and Petitioner filed a brief to substantiate his damages request. ECF No.
62 (“Br.”). Respondent reacted with a brief of his own, and then Petitioner filed his reply.
ECF Nos. 63 (“Opp.”), and 64 (“Resp.”). The parties agreed to argue their positions at a
Motions Day hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed damages issues. ECF.
No. 66. That hearing was held on October 6, 2023.3 The case is now ripe for a
determination.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, the Rule 4(c) Report,
the Ruling on Entitlement and the parties’ respective pre-hearing briefs. In summary, at
the time of vaccination G.C. was a 67-year-old who did some accounting work, as well as
piece work on auto electric modules for his son’s company. Ex. 11 at 1. Petitioner had a
non-contributory medical history. Id. He received both the flu and Tdap vaccinations in
his left deltoid on October 2, 2017. Ex. 1 at 1. In his affidavit, G.C. stated that the
vaccinations “seemed fairly routine” but that he “started to have pain in [his] left arm the
day after [his] vaccines.” Ex. 11 at 2. G.C. recalled that “[o]ver the next several weeks,
[his] activities became increasingly limited because [he] could not raise [his] left arm
above chest height without a lot of pain.” Id. at 2-3.
On February 15, 2018 (approximately four months post-vaccination), G.C. first
presented to his PCP with a chief complaint of left arm pain. Ex. 2 at 18. The nurse’s
notes state: “Pt c/o left arm pain x4 months. He states he cannot lift the arm and has a
3 At the end of the hearing held on October 6, 2023, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages in
this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing. See ECF No. 69. The transcript
from the hearing is fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 3 of 9
sharp pain in it. He states this started after he was given the influenza and Tdap shots in
both arm[s].” Id. On physical examination it was noted, Petitioner “CANNOT ABDUCT
LEFT ARM AT SHOULDER PAST 90 DEGREES NO ABNORMALITY ON PALPATION.”
Id. at 19. The plan stated, “[r]eviewed possible dx. Wants to avoid MRI for now. One refill
ibuprofen. I demonstrated rehab exercises that he will do at home. He will call and give
us an update in 1 month.” Id.
On April 20, 2018, and again on April 23, 2018, G.C. called his PCP’s office stating
“his L shoulder is not getting any better. Stated he is having a hard time raising it over his
head. Would like a referral for MRI.” Ex. 2 at 16-17. On April 25, 2018, G.C. sent a
message to his PCP via the Patient Portal. Id. at. 9. G.C. stated:
Hi Dr Baldwin, my arm is still bothering me and I would like to get an MRI
done on it. I talked with my insurance company and that is what they
recommended. The throbbing pain mostly at night has finally quit but it is
pretty much useless trying to lift anything above my chest or overhead with
my left arm; seems to lock up and the pain won't let me. I took most of the
[ibuprofen] (seventy) but quit as they were making me [drowsy] driving
home from work; afraid I was going to wreck and kill somebody. Did the
exercises the best I could but something is not right and I need to know
what it is.
Id. On April 26, 2018, G.C. underwent an MRI of his left shoulder. Id. at 6. The MRI
revealed, “Complete tear of the rotator cuff. Early degenerative changes in the
glenohumeral joint. Muscle and tendon impingement secondary to AC joint degenerative
disease.” Id.
On June 7, 2018, G.C. had an orthopedic surgery consultation. Ex. 2 at 1.
Petitioner reported that his left shoulder pain began after a flu and Tdap vaccinations. Id.
It was noted that Petitioner “had had a previous episode where he didn’t tolerate injections
well and had normally tried to avoid injections. Because of this, he states he has filed a
claim related to shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.” Id. The impression was
a left full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Id. The recommendation states,
Since he hasn’t done well with medical treatment, and with pending
litigation, surgical outcomes are typically less beneficial, and certainly he
seems to have had more than his share of untoward reactions.
Consequently, I have explained to him that he can get relief of symptoms
with physical therapy by strengthening the muscles that are still intact,
without taking on any of the risks of surgical treatment. He would like to try
this and consequently was provided with a prescription for physical therapy
3

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 4 of 9
two times per week and then I will plan to see him back in one month, to
see if this is proving to be of any benefit.
Id.
On June 16, 2018, G.C. filed a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Report. Ex. 6 at 1. On the VAERS Report, Petitioner reported that his left arm pain began
on October 3, 2017. Id. at 1-2.
On June 19, 2018, Petitioner had his initial physical therapy (PT) visit, and reported
pain that had been ongoing since October 2017, following what he reported was an
injection into his shoulder that was too high. Ex. 5 at 9. Petitioner reported that he lost a
lot of range of motion and strength overall. Id. Petitioner indicated that “lately he feels like
his shoulder is improving functionally, however he is rather frustrated with the situation
and is upset with not being able to complete all tasks that he normally would have.
[Patient] has most difficulty with reaching, carrying, and lifting as well as sleeping on his
shoulder. [Patient] denies any numbness or tingling, and reports no surgeries or trauma
to his shoulder other than what was reported.” Id. Petitioner rated his pain at “8” on a
scale of zero through ten. Id. at 8. The evaluation stated that Petitioner would benefit from
PT to improve range of motion, strength, and overall function. Id. at 10. By July 12, 2018,
Petitioner had six PT visits, and he had full range of motion and better joint mobility. Ex.
5 at 12-13. He still had some tightness in the posterior capsule, and his strength was not
where it had been prior to injury. Id.
On July 30, 2018, G.C. returned to the orthopedist, reporting that although his pain
had not completely resolved, it was much improved resulting in better sleep and
significantly better range of motion. Id. Additionally, G.C. reported pain while lifting
anything of appreciable weight from a height, but was not having to take any medicine on
a routine basis. Id. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner’s tear would not heal on its own,
and even if symptoms subsided there was a possibility of extending the tear and losing
more function. Id. Petitioner was noted to be very pleased with therapy and decided to
continue on an independent exercise program. Id. Petitioner returned to the orthopedist
on October 4, 2018, noting that his pain had markedly decreased and he was sleeping
better, however, he was still not able to sleep on his right side. Ex. 10 at 1.
III. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
4

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 5 of 9
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579, 489-90 (2013).
The Graves decision maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering
awards into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is
compared to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. at
590. Instead, Graves assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims, were
assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the
majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 6 of 9
pain and suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury
claims outside of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the
statutory cap merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the
magnitude of all possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap.
Although Graves is not controlling of the outcome in this case, it emphasizes the need to
focus on what the petitioner in question should rightfully receive, all things being equal
(although it does not preclude consideration of what comparable other claimants
received).
IV. Appropriate Compensation in this Matter
A. Past Pain and Suffering
Petitioner’s awareness of his injury is not disputed, leaving only its severity and
duration to be considered. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and
suffering, I have carefully reviewed and considered the complete record in this case. I
have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU
SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating such cases. However, my
determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case.
Petitioner requests an award of $55,000.00 in past pain, suffering and emotional
distress for his SIRVA. Br. at 19, 20. In addition to his intrusive treatment course, his
SIRVA has had a significant effect on his quality of life, including continued difficulty lifting
with two hands overhead, putting on a shirt or jacket, playing catch or hoops with his
nephews, getting up from sitting on the floor, making the bed, washing his car or
motorcycle, and most upsetting, he cannot ride his Harley, which was his favorite pastime.
Id. at 15.
G.C. asserts that his pain and suffering is consistent with those described in
several prior SIRVA damages decisions - Couch, Welch, and Rayborn5 (cases in which
the claimants were all awarded $55,000.00 in past pain and suffering). Most significantly,
in all three cases the petitioners “presented for their initial treatment approximately four
months after vaccination.” Br. at 18. Additionally, “[those petitioners] had comparable pain
ratings of up to 8 out of 10. For those petitioners who sought physical or occupational
5 Couch v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 20-1246V, 2022 WL 4453921 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 24, 2022) (Petitioner was
prescribed meloxicam, her pain was rated as high as 8 out of 10, but as time was lower, one MRI, one x-
ray, one cortisone injection, no in-person PT due to COVID-19, one year in duration); Welch v. Sec'y of
HHS, No. 18-660V, 2021 WL 4612654 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 2, 2021) (Petitioner used over-the-counter pain
medication, attended six PT sessions, one MRI, no cortisone injections, one year in duration); Rayborn v.
Sec’y of HHS, No. 18-226V, 2020 WL 5522948 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 1, 2018) (Petitioner self-treated with over-
the-counter pain medicine, her pain was rated between 2 out of 10 and 6 out ten, one MRI, attended 14 PT
sessions, nine month duration).
6

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 7 of 9
therapy, the number of visits was similar to that of [G.C.], who attended eight visits. Each
petitioner underwent an MRI, which all revealed SIRVA-related findings, however only the
Welch petitioner was found to have a rotator cuff tear similar to [G.C.]. [G.C.’s] 1.5 x 1.5
cm complete rotator cuff tear is a significant injury found on MRI and one that
distinguishes his injury from the Couch and Rayborn petitioners.” Id. at 18-19. Petitioner
also noted that his duration of treatment was comparable with these cases. Id. at 19.
In response, Respondent recommends a past pain and suffering award of no more
than $27,500.00. Opp. at 2. Respondent asserts that Petitioner experienced a very mild
SIRVA in comparison to most other SIRVA cases in the Program. Id. at 8. Petitioner’s
case is thus distinguishable from those that he cites. Opp. at 7. Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that he is entitled to more than Respondent’s proffer. Id.
In particular, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s four-month delay in seeking
treatment, which he describes as “a significant gap”, suggests that Petitioner’s pain was
not severe. Opp. at 7. Thereafter, Petitioner treated intermittently for approximately eight
months until one year post-vaccination, undergoing one massage session and eight PT
sessions during that time with good results, and with no subsequent treatment. Id. at 8.
Respondent also notes the MRI finding of degenerative disease revealed another factor
that may have contributed to Petitioner’s symptoms, and Petitioner did not seek treatment
beyond one year post-vaccination. Id. Respondent argues that the petitioners in Ramos
and Mejias experienced more severe treatment courses.6
The record reveals that Petitioner overall had a generally mild-to-moderate course
of SIRVA – one MRI, eight PT sessions, one massage therapy session, prescription
ibuprofen for pain, and a one-year treatment course. Petitioner’s objective pain ratings
are not well-documented in the record, but was noted as 8 out of 10 when evaluated by
PT. See Ex. 5 at 8. Notably, Petitioner did not receive any steroid or cortisone injections
and he also did not undergo surgery – meaning (in accordance with most pain and
suffering awards in SIRVA cases) he likely should not receive in excess of $100,000.00.
The cases cited by Petitioner are most instructive in determing damages in this
case. With minor degrees of variation, they involved petitioners who all received one MRI,
had a similar number of PT sessions, treatment courses lasting approximately one year
or less, and no more than one cortisone injection (if any). See cases cited supra note 5.
Respondent emphasizes, however, that Petitioner did not seek treatment for his shoulder
symptoms until four months post-vaccination. See Opp. at 7. Respondent asserts that
6 Ramos v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 4, 2021) (awarding $40,000.00
for past pain and suffering); Mejias v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 19-1944V, 2021 WL 5895622 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 10,
2021) (awarding $45,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
7

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 8 of 9
this four-month delay is a significant gap and suggests that Petitioner’s pain was not
severe. Id. Respondent accurately states that delays in seeking treatment, as well as
gaps in treatment, weigh in my determination of the severity of a petitioner’s pain and
suffering. See id. (citing Shelton v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 19-279V, 2021 WL 2550093, at *7
(Fed. Cl. May 21, 2021) and Harper v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 18-202V, 2021 WL 5231980,
at *4 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 8, 2021)). However, each comparable case cited by Petitioner also
involved a similar treatment delay. See Couch, 2022 WL 4453921, at *3, 5 (initial
treatment delay of approximately four months); Welch, 2021 WL 4612654, at *2 (first
sought care 110 days post-vaccination); Rayborn, 2020 WL 5522948, at *11 (opted to
self-treat her injury for approximately four months). Therefore, while delay does bear on
severity of injury in determining the proper pain and suffering amount, it is already “priced”
into Petitioner’s comparable cases.
Overall, the totality of evidence suggests a past pain and suffering award close to,
but slightly less than (based on severity), the comparable cases cited by Petitioner would
be the fairest award. Thus, and pursuant to my oral ruling on October 6, 2023 (which is
fully adopted herein), I find that $50,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount
of compensation for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
B. Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Initially, Petitioner requested $998.74 in past unreimbursed expenses. Br. at 20.
However, in his reply Petitioner revised his past unreimbursed expenses request to
$908.74. Reply at 11, n. 14. In his brief, Respondent contended that the evidence only
supported reimbursement of $819.59. Opp. at 11. Respondent argued that the amounts
sought for an August 20, 2018 encounter ($15.00), and the purchase of ice cleats
($74.15), were not related to the diagnosis or treatment of Petitioner’s left shoulder
symptoms. Id. at 10-11. However, at the Motions Day hearing, Respondent conceded the
amount of the ice cleats “because they appear to be recommended by the doctor.”
(Hr’g Tr. 13:3-5, Oct. 6, 2023.)
Thus, the only remaining expense in dispute is $15.00 for Petitioner’s August 20,
2018 encounter. Petitioner saw a new PCP on August 20, 2018 to establish care and to
discuss a possible sleep apnea referral. Ex. 7 at 1. It is clear that Petitioner’s SIRVA was
mentioned at this visit; however, there is no indication that there was any further
assessment by the new PCP regarding his SIRVA. Id. Rather, it was noted that Petitioner
“moves all extremit[ies] spontaneously with normal range of motion.” Id. at 2. Accordingly,
I agree with Respondent that the medical expenses Petitioner incurred for this encounter
are not compensable as part of damages. I thus find that Petitioner is entitled to $893.74
for past unreimbursed medical expenses.
8

Case 1:19-vv-00296-UNJ Document 75 Filed 01/12/24 Page 9 of 9
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $50,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for G.C.’s past pain and suffering. I find that and award of $893.74 is
appropriate compensation for G.C.’s past unreimbursed expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,893.74 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.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 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.
9