VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00553
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00553
Petitioner: Klaudia Aubuchon
Filed: 2019-04-15
Decided: 2021-11-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-07
Condition: left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
Klaudia Aubuchon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 15, 2019, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on December 7, 2016. She claimed the injury manifested within the Table timeframe and caused residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied that the injury was a Table SIRVA or that the vaccine caused her condition. Despite these disagreements, the parties filed a joint stipulation on October 26, 2021, agreeing to settle the case. The Chief Special Master adopted the stipulation, awarding Ms. Aubuchon a lump sum of $50,000.00 for all damages. This award represents a compromise of the parties' positions on liability and damages. The case was resolved via stipulation, with the petitioner releasing the Secretary of Health and Human Services from further claims related to this vaccine administration.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00553-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-04-06
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/03/2021) regarding 29 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Rule 4 Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0553V
UNPUBLISHED
KLAUDIA AUBUCHON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 3, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On April 15, 2019, Klaudia AuBuchon filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on December
7, 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-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On April 15, 2019, Ms. AuBuchon filed her petition, along with Exhibits 1-7
including medical records and an affidavit (ECF No. 1). On June 3, 2019, Petitioner filed
Exhibit 8 containing medical records (ECF No. 8). The initial status conference was held
on June 3, 2019, after which Petitioner was directed to file additional medical records and
a Statement of Completion (ECF No. 9). On June 4, 2019, Petitioner filed Exhibit 9 (ECF
No. 10) and a Statement of Completion (ECF No. 11). Petitioner filed additional medical
records in January and May of 2020 (ECF Nos. 15 and 19).3
On July 29, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 23).
Respondent asserted in it that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that
the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and thus Petitioner could not
meet the requirements of a Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) SIRVA claim. Id. at *7-8.
Respondent further asserted that Petitioner also had not provided evidence sufficient to
establish causation-in-fact, citing records in which health care providers diagnosed
Petitioner with cervicalgia and referred to the contribution of cervical pathology to
Petitioner’s shoulder symptoms. Id. at *8.
On November 30, 2020, Petitioner filed Exhibit 12, a supplemental affidavit
addressing onset (ECF No. 25). On December 7, 2020, Petitioner filed a Statement of
Completion indicating that all relevant medical records had been filed (ECF No. 27).
On February 16, 2021, I issued an order allowing the parties to file additional
evidence by March 2, 2021, and stated that after that date I intended to issue a ruling on
onset. Scheduling Order (non PDF), issued Feb. 16, 2021. On March 2, 2021, the parties
filed a joint status report indicating that they did not intend to file additional evidence
concerning onset (ECF No. 28). The issue of onset is now ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours of vaccine
3 On January 22, 2020, a telephonic status conference was held because the petition in this case and
another case filed on Petitioner’s behalf by a different attorney, AuBuchon v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 19-1833, sought relief related to the same injury and vaccination. Scheduling Order, issued Jan.
22, 2020 (ECF No.16). During the status conference, counsel confirmed that Petitioner wished to proceed
with the case filed under this docket number rather than the parallel matter. Id. at *1. Petitioner filed a motion
to voluntarily dismiss the other case, 19-1833, and an order concluding proceedings in that case was issued
on February 27, 2020. AuBuchon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1833, Order Concluding
Proceedings, issued Feb. 27, 2020 (ECF No. 9).
2

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 3 of 9
administration as set forth in the Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination); 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “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-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
3

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 4 of 9
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
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence filed. Specifically,
I rely upon on the following evidence:
• Exs. 1 at 1 and 2 at 33, documenting that a flu vaccine was administered
intramuscularly into Petitioner’s left deltoid on December 7, 2016.
• Ex. 2 at 21, a record of Petitioner’s December 22, 2016 appointment with
Dr. Lomeli for other concerns, without reference to Petitioner’s left arm.
• Ex. 2 at 25, a record of Petitioner’s February 22, 2017 appointment with Dr.
Lomeli for other matters without mention of Petitioner’s left arm.
• Ex. 2 at 17-19, a record of Petitioner’s March 14, 2017 appointment with Dr.
Ijadi, reporting a two month history of left shoulder pain starting a few days
after receiving her flu shot and assessing her with rotator cuff syndrome or
deltoid bursitis secondary to shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration.
• Ex. 2 at 28, a record of Petitioner’s March 16, 2017 visit with Dr. Cabral
reporting left shoulder pain for four months since her flu shot.
• Ex. 2 at 9-12, a record of Petitioner’s March 17, 2017 visit with Dr. Ijadi,
noting a four month history of left shoulder pain and listing the trauma type
4

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 5 of 9
as “Flu shot.” This record also states, “Left shoulder pain status post flu
shot.” Id. at 9. Dr. Ijadi’s impression was “Left shoulder pain secondary to
flu shot.” Id. at 11.
• Ex. 2 at 40, a record of Petitioner’s March 17, 2017 physical therapy
evaluation, noting that Petitioner reported “pain in the left shoulder since
approximately December of last year . . . . She reports that she feels that flu
shot she receiving in December contributed the pain as she started having
pain after that incident.”
• Ex. 4 at 15, a record of Petitioner’s June 14, 2017 appointment with Dr.
Srinivasan, noting that Petitioner presented with “LEFT ARM PAIN
FOLLOWING FLUE [sp] SHOT INJECT DECEMBER 7, 2016 PAIN
PERSINTEN SENCE.”4 While this record also indicates that the symptoms
had been existing for seven months, which arguably would put onset in
November, I assign more weight to the specific date recorded, December
7, 2016, than to the approximation of seven months of pain.
• Ex. 4 at 6, a record of Petitioner’s July 8, 2017 appointment with Dr.
Srinivasan, indicating that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain had been “existing
for 7 month(s),” which would put onset in December.
• Ex. 5 at 9, a record of Petitioner’s August 1, 2017 appointment with Dr.
Shomer,5 indicating that she “received flu vaccine injection in L deltoid in
December 2016. Post injection, patient reports constant onsets of
headache, lethargy, coughing, nasal discharge, sinus pressure/congestion,
and L arm pain.”
• Ex. 10 at 52, an August 3, 2017 patient information form listing the date of
injury as 12/7/16 and indicating “didn’t have any injury except the shot flu
shot.”
• Ex. 10 at 16, an August 30, 2017 record of neurologist Dr. Nudleman,
indicating that Petitioner reported receiving a flu shot in her left deltoid on
December 7, 2016 and developed associated pain and swelling. Dr.
4 Admittedly, this record inaccurately indicates that Petitioner is male. Ex. 4 at 15. However, based on my
experience reviewing medical records, this error does not cast doubt on the accuracy of the record as to
the onset of shoulder pain.
5 The record does not indicate Dr. Shomer’s specialty. The August 1, 2017 record indicates that he has MD
and PhD degrees, and list him as a “physician and surgeon.” Ex. 5 at 9. The objective section of the record
appears to refer to examination of Petitioner’s eyes and indicates that he referred her for a “full systemic
evaluation.” Id. However, the records produced by his office also include results of blood tests and x-rays
of Petitioner’s sinuses and chest. See generally Ex. 5.
5

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 6 of 9
Nudleman stated, “[b]ased on the patient’s findings, it is felt that she
sustained an adverse reaction to a flu vaccine injection into the left deltoid.
There appears to be a chronic myositis or inflammation of the deltoid.” Id.
at 19.
• Ex. 4 at 3, a record of Petitioner’s September 22, 2017 appointment with
Dr. Srinivasan, reporting shoulder pain for nine months, which would mean
December. Although the first page of this record incorrectly indicates that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain was in her right arm, the same record assessed
Petitioner as having pain in her left shoulder and having left shoulder and
deltoid tendinitis. Ex. 4 at 4. Dr. Srinivasan’s other records refer only to left
arm pain. See generally Ex. 4. In this context, the reference to right arm
pain on Ex. 4 at 3 appears to be a typographical error and does not cast
doubt on the record’s information as to onset.
• Ex. 12, Petitioner’s supplemental affidavit. Petitioner asserts that she was
sitting and the administrator was standing when the shot was administered.
Id. at ¶ 2. She states that when the vaccine was administered it felt very
different from other shots she had received. Id. Petitioner described the
experience:
It felt like the liquid was building pressure inside my shoulder.
It was very painful when she finished injecting the vaccination,
the pain was about 6 or 7 out of 10 (10 being excruciating).
However the nurse said this was normal and should go away
in a few days. My shoulder continued to hurt later that day and
I had difficulty with movement due to the pain. Due to the pain
I could not raise, rotate or extend my arm as usual. It was a
stabbing pain which felt like it was tearing my entire arm. I also
had to reduce my work hours due to the pain.
The following week after my vaccination the pain had
continued since then but started increasing more and waking
me up during the night. This continued for the following month,
sometimes the pain was a dull pain and other times a sharp
pain.
Ex. 12 at ¶¶ 2-3.
The above medical entries preponderantly support a finding that Petitioner
experienced left arm pain within 48 hours of vaccine administration.
6

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 7 of 9
I acknowledge that Petitioner had two medical appointments between the
administration of the flu vaccine and the first appointment recording her left shoulder pain,
on December 22, 2016 and February 22, 2017, and that neither of these records contain
any indication that she reported left shoulder pain from her flu shot. Ex. 2 at 21-27. In her
affidavit, Petitioner asserts that while these records are silent on her shoulder pain, she
did mention her left shoulder pain to her doctor. Ex. 12 at ¶ 4. Thus, she alleges that at
the December 22, 2016 appointment she reported her left shoulder pain to the nurse at
the beginning of the visit, who told her to tell the doctor about it. Ex. 12 at ¶ 4. But when
she did (purportedly) report the pain to the doctor, the doctor responded that there was
not enough time to address it in that appointment and that she should make another one
to deal with that specific issue. Id.
Concerning the February 22, 2017 appointment, Petitioner asserts that she again
mentioned her left shoulder pain to the doctor, but her concerns were (again) not
addressed:
I was told the flu shot doesn’t cause the pain I was describing. I said I have
stabbing pain since the flu shot injection and the pain since that day hasn’t
gone away. They were very dismissive when I claimed that the pain was
from the flu shot.
Ex. 12 at ¶ 5.
I note that at both the December 22, 2016 and February 22, 2017 appointments,
Petitioner was seen for multiple other medical concerns. I thus find her explanation for
why the first record makes no mention of post-vaccination pain (that she was told to make
another appointment to address her shoulder pain) to be reasonable. And the rationale
for why the second visit is silent on shoulder pain (the treater did not find the complaint
legitimate) is consistent with the fact that some treaters may not necessarily possess
awareness of SIRVA as a “real”/cognizable vaccine injury.
Accordingly, the fact that these records (both of which reflect opportunities for the
Petitioner to inform a treater of her SIRVA) are silent on the matter does not totally
undercut her allegations of close-in-time pain. Of course, the lack of immediate
contemporaneous evidence of pain complaints does impact the damages potentially
recoverable in this case. The fact that Petitioner did not make an appointment specifically
to address her left shoulder pain until March 2017, despite her purported complaints about
it speaks to the severity of her injury, and thus her damages, since she did not deem the
problem concerning enough to impress upon a treater its importance. But it does not
establish that she was not experiencing shoulder pain at all at the time of the December
2016 and February 2017 appointments.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 8 of 9
I also acknowledge that the medical records concerning onset are quite variable in
this case, and do not consistently identify a precise onset date. For instance, one record
refers to onset as two months prior to a March 14, 2017 appointment, which would purport
to put it in January (Ex. 2 at 17). The same record also indicates that her pain started
“FEW DAYS AFTER RECEIVING FLU SHOT,” which would put onset in December. Id.
“Few” is an inexact description and does not necessarily place onset within, or outside of,
the relevant 48 hour period.6 Nevertheless, it strongly suggests that the onset occurred
close in time to the vaccination.
A subsequent March 16, 2017 record refers to pain since a flu shot four months
ago, which arguably could put onset in November. Ex. 2 at 28. Similarly, two records from
March 17, 2017 indicate Petitioner’s pain began four months earlier (which would suggest
November) but also refer to her pain as starting “post flu shot” or starting after her flu shot,
which would put onset in December at the earliest. Ex. 2 at 9, 40. A March 24, 2017 record
indicates that her pain began “3 Months ago on 12/24/2016.” Ex. 2 at 34. This would
purport to put onset 17 days after vaccination. However, the same sentence lists the injury
as “injected flu shot,” suggesting a closer temporal relationship between Petitioner’s flu
vaccine and arm pain. Id. And a July 7, 2017 record indicated that her pain has been
present for six months, possibly suggesting onset in January. Ex. 4 at 9.
After a comprehensive review of the record as a whole, I find that the record
supports a finding that the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was closely temporally
associated with her December 7, 2016 flu shot, sufficient to find preponderantly (albeit
barely) that the Table onset requirement is met. Medical record references to how many
months earlier Petitioner’s pain began alternatively, and inconsistently, suggest both an
earlier and later onset. However, the records consistently indicate that Petitioner related
her pain to her flu shot. Ex. 2 at 9, 17, 28, 34, 40; Ex. 4 at 15, Ex. 5 at 9; Ex. 10 at 16, 48.
And there are records suggestive of a close-in-time onset.
The above conclusion is also supported by records not long post-vaccination
showing that several of Petitioner’s treating physicians noted a likely relationship between
her flu vaccination and left shoulder pain. See Ex. 2 at 19 (March 17, 2017 record of Dr.
Ijadi assessing Petitioner with rotator cuff syndrome of left shoulder and indicating his
impression was that her injury was “RTC [rotator cuff syndrome] OR DELTOID BURSITIS
2/2 [due to] SHOULDER INJURY RELATED TO VACCINE ADMINISTRATION.
MULTIPLE CASE REPORTS SHOWING DELTOID AND SUBACROMIAL BURSITIS,
SEPTIC ARTHRITIS, RTC TEARS SHORTLY AFTER VARIOUS SHOULDER VACCINE
INJECTIONS”) (emphasis added); Ex. 2 at 35 (March 24, 2017 record of Dr. Begovic
assessing Petitioner with chronic left shoulder pain and noting her impression:
6 The Merriam-Webster online dictionary includes three definitions of few: (1) not many persons or things;
(2) consisting of or amounting to only a small number; at least some but indeterminately small in number;
(3) a small number of units or individuals; a special limited number. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/few (visited Mar. 3, 2021).
8

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 32 Filed 04/06/21 Page 9 of 9
“?ETIOLOGY POSIBLE DUE TO FLU SHOT”; Ex. 6 at 1 (noting Petitioner’s left shoulder
symptoms and indicating that they were “probably caused by flu shot – influenza which
was done 12/07/2016 in Pomona Valley Health Center CA”; Ex. 6 at 2-3 (noting
association of left shoulder pain and flu vaccination); Ex. 10 at 14 (discussing Petitioner’s
injury and stating, “[c]ausation of the chronic pain to the left deltoid is due to the Flu
vaccination”; Ex. 10 at 19 (“[b]ased upon the patient’s findings, it is felt that she sustained
an adverse reaction to a flu vaccine injection into the left deltoid”).
Accordingly, and despite Respondent’s reasonable objections, I find that there is
preponderant evidence to establish that the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48
hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
In his Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent’s sole objection to a Table SIRVA case was
onset, which herein I find has been established to be within the time set forth in the Table.
Thus, I anticipate that this case will soon proceed to damages discussions.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent shall file, by no later than
Friday, April 02, 2021, an amended Rule 4(c) Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00553-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-30
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/26/2021) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0553V
UNPUBLISHED
KLAUDIA AUBUCHON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 26, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On April 15, 2019, Klaudia Aubuchon 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 shesuffered left shoulder injuries related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
December 7, 2016. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed October 26, 2021, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner
further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced
the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and there has been no prior
award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition. Petition at
¶¶ 2, 17-19; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a Table
SIRVA within the Table timeframe, and denies that the flu vaccine in fact caused her
alleged shoulder injury and residual effects, or any other injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
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.
2National 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-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on October 26, 2021, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $50,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
__________________________________________
)
KLAUDIA AUBUCHON, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-553V (ECF)
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1. Klaudia Aubuchon (“petitioner”) filed a petition for vaccine compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (the “Vaccine
Program”). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly sustained following
petitioner’s receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine
Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a).
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on December 7, 2016.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she sustained the first symptom or manifestation of onset of
a left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set
forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her
SIRVA for more than six months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil
action for damages as a result of her condition.

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA within the Table
timeframe, and denies that the flu vaccine in fact caused her alleged shoulder injury and residual
effects, or any other injury.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that
the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent
with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive
compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of $50,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Klaudia Aubuchon, which amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and
after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings
before the special master to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in proceeding
upon this petition.
10. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396
et seq.), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 7
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to
paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject
to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any
award for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation
will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner, as contemplated by a strict construction of 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in her
individual capacity, and on behalf of her heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the United States of America from any and all actions or causes
of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all
demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could
be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out
of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to, or death of,
petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccine administered on
December 7, 2016, as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or
about April 15, 2019, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 19-553V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be
voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the
terms of this Stipulation, or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity
3

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 7
with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties’
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability
and damages claimed under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as
otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties’ respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States of
America or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that petitioner’s alleged left shoulder
injury and residual effects, or any other injury, were caused by the flu vaccine.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to
petitioner’s heirs, successors and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4

Case 1:19-vv-00553-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
KLAUOIA AUBUCHON
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
, JA,Rd;l{.1""'=-0?e.t~
M£I . MULLER HEA TJ-IER L. PEARLMAN
Muller Brazil, LLP Deputy Director
715 Twining Road Torts Branch, Civil Division
Suite 208 U.S. Department of Justice
Dresher, PA 19025 P.O. Box 146
(215) 885~1655 Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRET ARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
V ~ £ ~f\.A--O'n, ~ .
LP~~
Z?aA Pt1Sc,, A/Jht/,~ ~ ~ lck~
~I
TAMARA OVERBY VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Acting Director, Division of Injury Senior Trial Attorney
Compensation Programs (DICP) Torts Branch
Health Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and U.S. Department of Justice
Services Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station
and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146
5600 Fishers Lane, 08N 146B Tel.: (202) 616-4136
Rockville, MD 20857 Email: vorisjohnson@usdoj.gov
Dated:l o{u, /7pz_ I
5