VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00451
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00451
Petitioner: Cheri Sleeth
Filed: 2019-03-27
Decided: 2022-03-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-06
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 129525

AI-assisted case summary:
Cheri Sleeth filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 27, 2019, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on October 6, 2016. The ruling on entitlement found that Ms. Sleeth was entitled to compensation for a left SIRVA, determining that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, satisfying the criteria for a Table injury. The medical records indicated pain and decreased range of motion in her left shoulder following the flu shot, with subsequent diagnosis of a rotator cuff tear and bursitis. She underwent arthroscopic surgery and physical therapy. Respondent initially opposed compensation, arguing that the onset was not within 48 hours, but later conceded entitlement. A subsequent decision on March 3, 2022, awarded Ms. Sleeth $129,525.46 in damages, comprised of $127,500.00 for pain and suffering and $2,025.46 for unreimbursed expenses, based on a proffer agreed to by both parties. Ms. Sleeth is a competent adult.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00451-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-12-13
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/10/2021) regarding 46 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-451V
UNPUBLISHED
CHERI SLEETH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 10, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact;
Onset; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Laurie Wiesner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 27, 2019, Cheri Sleeth 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
6, 2016. 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-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find that there is a preponderance of evidence
that the onset of Petitioner’s injury (specifically shoulder pain) occurred within 48 hours
of his vaccination. I otherwise find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for a left
SIRVA.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was initiated on March 27, 2019. Initially, Respondent indicated a
willingness to engage in settlement discussions, but the parties reached an impasse, and
on April 8, 2021, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 41, Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report (“Report”). Respondent opposed compensation, arguing in part that Petitioner
has failed to establish a Table claim because the records did not established onset within
48 hours of Petitioner’s vaccination. Report. at 6-7.3
Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record on May 24, 2021, in support of
her claim. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement (“Mot.”),
ECF No. 43. Respondent filed a status report on July 6, 2021, stating that onset is the
only Table criteria that Respondent believes has not been met. ECF No. 45. Respondent
further stated that he has no additional arguments other than those set forth in his prior
Rule 4(c) Report. Id. This matter is now ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Ms. Sleeth received a flu vaccine on October 6, 2016 in her left shoulder. Ex. 1 at
1. Almost four weeks later, on November 1, 2016, Petitioner presented to Dr. Massari
with complaints of left shoulder and arm pain, and decreased range of motion. Ex. 2 at 2-
4. Petitioner stated that she “[g]ot a flu shot 1 month ago. Her shoulder, arm is sore….”
Id.
A month later, Petitioner saw Dr. David Buchalter, an orthopedic surgeon, on
December 13, 2016. Ex. 4 at 81-83. Dr. Buchalter’s records state the onset was “09-06-
16”, however it also states “Context: 10-06-16”. Id. at 82. Petitioner received a
corticosteroid injection and was referred to physical therapy. Id. at 83. Then, on December
20, 2016, Petitioner had her initial physical therapy consultation. Ex. 4 at 78-80. Petitioner
reported her left shoulder “has been bothering her since she received a flu shot in
October.” Id. at 78. The records also state that Petitioner sustained left shoulder pain and
limited range of motion “after receiving a flu shot….” Id. at 80.
3 Respondent also argues that Petitioner has not established causation-in-fact. Report at 7-8.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 9
Petitioner had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Buchalter on January 24, 2017. At
that time, the date of onset was noted as October 6, 2016. Ex. 4 at 61. She underwent an
MRI on January 27, 2017, which noted that she had “[l]eft shoulder pain with decreased
range of motion since having flu shot 10/6/16….” Ex. 4 at 88 (emphasis added). The MRI
showed a partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, mild subacromial subdeltoid
bursitis, and tendinosis of the rotator cuff tendons. Id.
Petitioner saw Dr. Buchalter again on February 7, 2017. At that time, the date of
onset was indicated as October 6, 2016, the timing was described as acute, and it was
specifically linked to her flu shot, stating “Context: 10-06-16 [patient] had flu shot….” Ex.
4 at 56-58. Later that same month, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery with Dr.
Buchalter. Ex. 4 at 52-55. Thereafter, Petitioner completed a round of physical therapy.
Ex. 4 at 3-4.
There is a subsequent two-year records gap. In 2019, Petitioner saw Dr. Buchalter
on two occasions and completed another round of physical therapy for left shoulder pain.
Ex. 12 at 62-64 (October 7, 2019 follow-up record with Dr. Buchalter for left shoulder
pain); Ex. 12 at 59-60 (October 10, 2019 record from physical therapy provider indicating
left shoulder continues to have some symptoms, pain, and discomfort); Ex. 12 at 7-9
(November 11, 2019 visit with Dr. Buchalter indicating Petitioner still has some “annoying
achy pain when reaching behind and sleeping on the shoulder”).
III. Affidavit Evidence
Ms. Sleeth submitted an affidavit in support of her petition on April 1, 2019. Ex. 7.
In it, she states that she received a flu vaccine in the morning of October 6, 2016. By noon
of that day, she states that her arm began hurting, and the pain felt progressively worse
throughout the afternoon. Id. at 2. Petitioner also states that she had trouble sleeping that
night due to the pain, and the next morning her shoulder continued to hurt. Id. at 2-3.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to show she suffered a Table claim
because onset of her pain was not within 48 hours of his vaccination. Report at 6-7; ECF
No. 45. Respondent notes that Petitioner’s medical records do not establish a definite
date of onset for her symptoms, and otherwise employ vague phrases that make it difficult
to determine whether her pain likely began within 48 hours after her vaccine. Id. at 7.
Respondent further argues that Petitioner has not established a causation-in-fact claim.
Id. at 7-8.
3

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 4 of 9
Petitioner requests that I issue a ruling finding that she is entitled to compensation
in this case. Mot. at 1. She avers that she meets the requirements for a SIRVA as
described in the Vaccine Injury Table, and thus is entitled to a presumption of causation.
Mot. at 4-5.
V. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
At issue is whether Petitioner meets the requirements for a SIRVA as set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). Specifically,
the parties dispute whether Petitioner’s symptoms (specifically pain) occurred within 48
hours. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a
petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which
case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination
she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A
vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests
all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 5 of 9
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has also recognized that “medical
records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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 & Hum. 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
5

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 6 of 9
be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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).
A. Factual Findings Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
supports each of the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner has no Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury
The first requirement under the QAIs for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems
associated with the affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the
symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent has
not contested that Petitioner meets this criterion, and I find that she has demonstrated a
lack of history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain
his symptoms. See Ex. 2 at 14-16 (records from the period prior to Petitioner’s vaccination
that include no history of prior shoulder pain).
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury was within Forty-eight Hours of her Flu
Vaccination
I find that, based on preponderant evidence, onset of Petitioner’s injury was within
48 Hours of her flu vaccination. The following finding of fact is based on a complete review
of the record, including all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed.
Specifically, I highlight the following:
6

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 7 of 9
• Petitioner received a flu vaccination in her left shoulder on October 6, 2016.
Ex. 1 at 1.
• On November 1, 2016, Petitioner complained of left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at
2-4. Dr. Massari’s records indicate that Petitioner affirmatively linked her
shoulder pain to the flu vaccine, noting “Got a flu shot 1 month ago. Her
shoulder, arm is sore….” Ex. 2 at 2-4.
• Petitioner reported continued shoulder pain on December 13, 2016 to Dr.
Buchalter, whose records also affirmatively link her shoulder pain to the
October 6, 2016 flu vaccine. See Ex. 4 at 81-82 (stating under “Context: 10-
06-16 [patient] had flu shot”).
• On December 20, 2016, Petitioner began physical therapy and reported
“her [left] shoulder has been bothering her since she received a flu shot in
October…she sustained [left] shoulder pain and limited [range of motion]
after receiving a flu shot”. Ex. 4 at 78-79.
• On January 27, 2017, Petitioner had an MRI, which noted that she had “[l]eft
shoulder pain with decreased range of motion since having flu shot
10/6/16….” Ex. 4 at 88
Based on the above, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that
onset of Petitioner’s injury was within 48 hours of his October 6, 2016 flu vaccine. Even if
the initial record evidence of Petitioner’s first complaint of shoulder pain is a bit vague, it
is not inconsistent with her contentions, and her witness statement is also reasonably
taken into account. All other records thereafter consistently identify onset as immediately
after vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
The third requirement under the QAIs for a Table SIRVA is that Petitioner’s pain
and recued range of motion is limited to the shoulder in which she received a vaccine. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner meets this
criterion, and I find that she has demonstrated pain and reduced range of motion only in
her left shoulder. See Ex. 4 at 80 (reporting only left shoulder pain since she received her
flu shot).
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last QAI criteria for a Table SIRVA states that there must be no other condition
or abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
7

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 8 of 9
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner meets this criterion, and
there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Thus, the record contains preponderant
evidence establishing that there is no other condition or abnormality which would explain
the symptoms of Petitioner’s left shoulder injury.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received flu vaccine intramuscularly in her left
shoulder on October 6, 2016 in Maryland. Ex. 1 at 1; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil
award for her injury. Ex. 8 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
As stated above, I have found that the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was
within 48 hours of vaccination. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this QAI
requirement). This finding also satisfies the requirement that Petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset occur within the time frame listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48 hours for a Table SIRVA following
receipt of the influenza vaccine). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a
Table SIRVA.
The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the severity of her
SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer
the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or that her
condition resulted in inpatient surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i), (iii)
(statutory severity requirement). The records demonstrate, and Respondent does not
contest, that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his shoulder injury for more than
six months and underwent surgical intervention. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 52-55; Ex. 12 at 62-
64. Thus, this requirement is also met.
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
VI. Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that the onset of Petitioner’s injury, specifically shoulder pain, was within 48 hours
8

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 51 Filed 12/13/21 Page 9 of 9
of her vaccine. Further, based on 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
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00451-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-03
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/28/2022) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-451V
UNPUBLISHED
CHERI SLEETH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 28, 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)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 27, 2019, Cheri Sleeth 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
6, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On November 10, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a SIRVA3. On January 27, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer
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).
3 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the award set forth in the proffer and waived his right to
seek review of a 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.

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 5
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$129,525.46 (comprised of $127,500.00 in pain and suffering and $2,025.46 for
unreimbursed expenses). Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $129,525.46 (comprised of $127,500.00 in pain and suffering and
$2,025.46 for unreimbursed 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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-00451-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
CHERI SLEETH, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-451V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On March 27, 2019, Cheri Sleeth (“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 a seasonal
influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 6, 2016. Petition at 1. On April 8, 2021, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report
recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. Rule 4(c) Report at 1 (ECF #41).
On November 10, 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 #51).
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,
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.

Case 1:19-vv-00451-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/22 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $127,500.00 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 $2,025.46. 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 following2: a lump sum payment of $129,525.46, in the form of
a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Cheri Sleeth: $129,525.46
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-00451-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/22 Page 5 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Matthew L. Murphy
MATTHEW L. MURPHY
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) 616-4840
Email: matthew.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: January 27, 2022
3