VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00596
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00596
Petitioner: Aaron Weso
Filed: 2019-04-23
Decided: 2022-10-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-30
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 52500

AI-assisted case summary:
Aaron Weso, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on November 30, 2017. Within 48 hours, he developed pain and reduced range of motion in his left shoulder, consistent with Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). He presented with symptoms shortly after vaccination, and while initial records noted full range of motion, later evaluations confirmed pain and limitations, particularly by July 2018. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that Weso's pain was not limited to the vaccinated shoulder and that a later work injury complicated the picture. However, the court found that Weso's pain and reduced range of motion were sufficiently limited to his left shoulder and that the injury met the criteria for a Table SIRVA claim. The court determined that the pain onset was within 48 hours of vaccination and that there was no prior condition or other abnormality to explain the symptoms. Following the ruling on entitlement, the parties stipulated to damages. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Aaron Weso a lump sum of $52,500.00 as compensation for all available damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00596-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-08
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/05/2022) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0596V
UNPUBLISHED
AARON WESO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 5, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Influenza
(Flu); Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).
Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 23, 2019, Aaron Weso filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”)
alleging that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)
as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on November 30, 2017.
Petition, ECF No. 1 at 3, 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished opinion 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 opinion 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-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find that a preponderance of evidence supports
the conclusion that Petitioner’s pain and reduced range of motion were limited to his left
shoulder, and that Petitioner is otherwise entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA
claim.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On August 24, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report disputing Petitioner’s
entitlement to a Vaccine Program award. ECF No. 26. Specifically, Respondent argued
that Petitioner failed to show that he suffered a Table injury because his pain was not
limited to his vaccinated shoulder. Rule 4(c) Report at 6-7. Respondent also argued that
Petitioner was unable to establish causation-in-fact under the relevant standard. Id. at 7-
8. Petitioner filed a status report on September 28, 2020 addressing these issues. ECF
No. 28. However, on January 15, 2021, Respondent indicated that he would continue to
contest entitlement. ECF No. 30.
On March 22, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation for SIRVA. ECF No. 32.
Petitioner specifically asserted that his pain and reduced range of motion were limited to
his vaccinated shoulder. Id. at 4-6.
Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on April 19, 2021
(“Response”) recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 33.
Respondent again argued that Petitioner’s pain and reduced range of motion were not
limited to his left shoulder and that his description of “constant burning” pain “suggests
radiating pain, which is not associated with SIRVA.” Id. at 6. Respondent also maintained
that “[P]etitioner did not develop limitations in range of motion in his left shoulder following
receipt of the flu vaccination.” Response at 6.
II. Relevant Factual Evidence
I have fully reviewed the evidence, including all medical records, Petitioner’s
affidavit, and the parties’ briefing. I find most relevant the following:
• Petitioner received a flu shot in his left deltoid on November 30, 2017. Ex. 2 at 1;
Ex. 3 at 4, 87. Petitioner was incarcerated at Green Bay Correctional Institute
(“GBCI”) at the time of vaccination. See Ex. 3 at 4.
• In his affidavit, signed on April 17, 2019, Petitioner avers that on December 1,
2017, he “awoke with a throbbing and achy pain at the site of the [flu] shot.” Ex. 1
2

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 9
at 1. He further avers that he submitted a request to be seen by the GBCI’s Health
Services Unit (“HSU”) “due to sharp pain.” Id.
• Petitioner presented to the HSU on December 4, 2017 (four days post-vaccination)
with complaints of sharp pain in his left shoulder that had been present for three-
to-four days. Ex. 3 at 26. The progress note charting this visit indicates that
Petitioner had full range of motion and “denie[d] any injury to shoulder, just started
hurting one day.” Id. The progress note further indicates that Petitioner received a
flu shot on November 30, 2017 in his left deltoid. Id. Petitioner was given an ice
bag and was instructed to take Tylenol and ibuprofen. Id.
• On December 7, 2017, Petitioner again presented to the HSU with complaints of
leg pain after working out. Ex. 3 at 26-27. He also complained of numbness and
tingling in his toes. Id. at 27. Although there is no indication that his left shoulder
was examined, the progress note reflects that he had previously been given
Tylenol and ice for his shoulder and had not experienced relief. Id.
• Petitioner presented to the HSU on December 18, 2017 for ongoing shoulder pain.
Ex. 3 at 27. The record documenting this visit indicates that Petitioner rated his
pain as a six on a ten-point scale and had full range of motion. Id. He was assessed
with “alt[eration] in comfort” of the left shoulder and was advised to continue taking
acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Id.
• Also on December 18, 2017, Petitioner submitted a written request to amend his
medical records because “medical staff confused a prior statement I made.” Ex. 3
at 96. In his request, Petitioner explained that a nurse informed him that his left
shoulder pain was a “muscle issue.” Id. Based on this information, Petitioner
“attempted to lightly work out figuring it might have been a crink or something but
it didn’t help.” Id.
• On January 19, 2018, Petitioner was again seen in the HSU for left shoulder pain
and ongoing left calf pain. Ex. 3 at 25. A shoulder examination revealed active
range of motion with pain at the extremes. Id. Petitioner was assessed with left
deltoid musculoskeletal pain. Id.
• A form entitled “Prescriber’s Orders” indicates that an order for a physical therapy
consultation was placed on February 12, 2018. Ex. 3 at 41.
• Petitioner returned to the HSU on March 2, 2018 with flu-like symptoms. Ex. 3 at
23-24. There is no indication that he complained of left shoulder pain during this
visit. Id.
3

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 4 of 9
• Petitioner presented to the HSU on May 21, 2018 for “terrible” left shoulder pain
that worsened when raised above shoulder level. Ex. 3 at 22. The progress note
documenting this appointment indicates that Petitioner’s symptoms started “last
late Nov[ember]” after receiving a flu shot. Id. The progress note further indicates
that Petitioner’s symptoms were “likely AC [acromioclavicular] j[oin]t related or
rotator cuff. Id.
• On June 27, 2018, Petitioner again presented to the HSU. Ex. 3 at 22, 21. The
note documenting this visit indicates that despite being handcuffed behind his
back, he was “able to roll shoulders.” Id. at 22.
• In a letter dated July 2, 2018 and addressed to the HSU supervisor, Petitioner
stated that the therapist who evaluated his shoulder diagnosed him after only two
minutes “just by talking to me and not doing any “indepth [sic] investigation i.e.[,]
tests, etc.” Ex. 5 at 6. Petitioner further stated that the therapist’s impressions
contradicted the physician’s assessment and expressed concern that his shoulder
injury had not resolved. Id. He concluded his letter by noting that his pain had
turned into a “constant burning.” Id.
• Petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation on July 3, 2018. Ex. 3
at 59-63. The notes documenting this appointment indicate that Petitioner rated
his pain as a seven on a ten-point scale. Id. at 59. Treatment goals included the
restoration of Petitioner’s range of motion in his left shoulder and he was assessed
with shoulder impingement syndrome. Id. at 60, 62.
• On August 7 and August 11, 2018, Petitioner filled out forms stating that he
continued to experience shoulder symptoms and “no one is taking my pain
seriously.” Ex. 3 at 172, Ex. 5 at 4; Ex. 3 at 170; Ex. 5 at 2.
• A letter from the HSU, dated August 13, 2018, noted that Petitioner was on the
waitlist for physical therapy and that his treatment would resume once he was
moved to GBCI’s general population unit. Ex. 3. at 94. The letter further indicated
that Petitioner should continue his exercises and take ibuprofen and Tylenol. Id.
• On August 13, 2018, Petitioner was examined for his left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at
19. The record documenting this visit indicates that Petitioner correlated his
symptoms with receipt of the flu shot. Id.
• Petitioner was transported to St. Vincent Hospital’s emergency room on August
17, 2018 after falling from a bunk bed. Ex. 3 at 45. The medical notes indicate that
Petitioner jammed his finger and struck his head, suffering from a loss of
consciousness for an unknown period. Id. There is no indication that Petitioner
complained of left shoulder pain during his visit to the emergency room. Id.
4

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 5 of 9
• Petitioner presented to the HSU on September 7, 2018 concerning pain in his right
wrist that extended to his shoulder. Ex. 3 at 13.
• After his release from GBCI, on October 23, 2018, Petitioner presented to A.P.N.P.
Sue Weso for left arm pain. Ex. 4 at 6. The medical note indicates that he “got a
flu shot in the left arm last [year] and he continues to have pain.” Id. On exam,
Petitioner was determined to have soreness “on the left deltoid in the body of the
muscle” and reduced range of motion in his left arm. Id. at 7.
• On January 9, 2019, Petitioner presented to A.P.N.P. Sarah Harkey after suffering
an arm injury. Ex. 4 at 4. The medical note indicates that Petitioner “may have
twisted his arm wrong, developed pain in left forearm near wrist and into shoulder.”
Id. Petitioner further reported hand numbness and tingling and noted that he had
previously been diagnosed with muscle strain. Id. Petitioner was assessed with a
left wrist injury. Id. at 5.
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 Petitioner may prevail on his claim if he has “sustained, or endured
the significant aggravation of any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (the Table). Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). 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). If a claimant establishes that he has
suffered a “Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
Section 11(c)(1) also contains requirements concerning the type of vaccination
received and where it was administered, the duration or significance of the injury, and the
lack of any other award or settlement. See Section 11(c)(1)(A), (B), (D), and (E). With
regard to duration, a petitioner must establish that he suffered the residual effects or
complications of such illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than six months after
the administration of the vaccine. Section 11(c)(1)(D).
Effective for petitions filed beginning on March 21, 2017, SIRVA is an injury listed
on the Vaccine Injury Table. See Vaccine Injury Table: Qualifications and aids to
interpretation. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). The criteria are as follows:
A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such
recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation
5

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 6 of 9
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 (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).
Id.
IV. Findings of Fact Regarding Scope of Pain and Limited Range of Motion
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to establish that he suffered a Table
injury because his symptoms were not limited to his left shoulder. Response at 6. In
support of this position, Respondent cites to the singular record in which Petitioner
describes his pain as “constantly burning.” See Ex. 5 at 6. Respondent asserts that
“[b]urning does not comport with the type of symptoms that are associated with SIRVA
and instead suggests radiating pain.” Response at 6.
In response, Petitioner attempts to distinguish “burning” from “radiating” by
referring to the dictionary. See Reply at 2. However, I find that defining these terms is not
necessary. Even if I were to determine that these sensations are related, a review of the
other records reveals that in all other instances Petitioner reported general shoulder pain.
A singular reference to a burning sensation does not indicate that Petitioner’s pain was
not limited to his left shoulder (and for purposes of calculating damages can be
disregarded in any event).
In a further attempt to support his argument that Petitioner’s symptoms were not
limited to his vaccinated shoulder, Respondent points to Petitioner’s January 9, 2019
appointment with A.P.N.P. Harkey. The medical note documenting this visit indicates that
Petitioner complained of pain in his “left forearm near wrist and into shoulder,” as well as
numbness and tingling in his hands. Ex. 4 at 4. Although Respondent acknowledges that
Petitioner related these symptoms to an on-the-job injury, he asserts that “[e]ither
[P]etitioner’s left shoulder pain described at this visit is related to the subject vaccination
he received (which now included radiating symptoms and symptoms in other parts of his
body outside of his shoulder) or [P]etitioner’s left shoulder pain and other symptoms were
related to his work incident,” thereby limiting any award for damages. Response at 7.
There is nothing in the record that suggests that the symptoms Petitioner cited on
January 9, 2019 are linked to his November 30, 2017 flu shot. First, Petitioner did not
6

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 7 of 9
mention his history of left shoulder issues during this visit, and there is no indication that
he attributed his pain, numbness, or tingling to vaccination. Instead, Petitioner specifically
recounted “grabbing material and . . . twist[ing] his arm wrong” only a few days earlier.
Ex. 4 at 4. Given Petitioner’s plausible attribution of his symptoms to a January 2019 work
injury that occurred close-in-time to his quest for treatment, I find that it is more likely than
not that his left wrist and shoulder pain, as well as his hand numbness and tingling, were
unconnected to his SIRVA. These facts do not undermine Petitioner’s showing of a SIRVA
injury – at most, they establish a distinguishable injury that can be disregarded in
determining damages in this case.
Respondent also argues that “[P]etitioner’s most contemporaneous records to the
vaccination” do not support his claim of experiencing reduced range of motion. Response
at 6, n. 3. Admittedly, it is the case that in the immediate months following vaccination
Petitioner was found to have manifested full range of motion of his left shoulder. However,
this finding changed by Petitioner’s July 3, 2018 initial physical therapy evaluation. Ex. 3
at 59-63. Indeed, Petitioner’s treatment goals included a restoration of range of motion in
his left shoulder. Id. at 62. Respondent apparently dismisses this evidence because it is
contained in a record generated over seven months after Petitioner’s vaccination.
However, reductions in range of motion often lag after the initial injury by weeks or
months, and I do not find that a SIRVA injury must immediately display range of motion
limitations to be actionable.
Accordingly, preponderant evidence establishes that Petitioner’s pain and reduced
range of motion were sufficiently “limited” to his left shoulder for a favorable ruling on this
SIRVA element.
V. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
1. Prior Condition
The first QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA is lack of a history revealing problems
associated with the affected shoulder which were experienced prior to vaccination and
would explain the symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i).
Respondent has not contested that Petitioner has met the first requirement under
the QAI for a Table SIRVA. Additionally, I do not find any evidence that Petitioner suffered
a pre-vaccination history of problems that would explain his post-vaccination shoulder
symptoms. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has met this first criterion to establish a Table
SIRVA.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 8 of 9
2. Onset
A petitioner alleging a SIRVA claim must also show that he experienced the first
symptom or onset within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)), and that
his pain began within that same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI
criteria)).
Respondent does not dispute Petitioner has met this requirement. Additionally, I
find that the evidence collectively establishes that his shoulder pain began within 48 hours
of receiving the November 30, 2017 flu vaccine. There is no counterevidence undercutting
Petitioner’s contention that his pain began close-in-time to vaccination. See, e.g., Ex. 3
at 26 (December 4, 2017 progress note documenting Petitioner’s report of left shoulder
pain and his receipt of the flu shot four days earlier). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has
met this criterion to establish a Table SIRVA.
3. Other 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. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Although Respondent has noted that Petitioner attributed symptoms
arising on or around January 2019 to a work injury, he has otherwise 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
before January 2019.
4. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or established
causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional
requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual effects of injury
lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are
established or undisputed.
Thus, based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a
Table SIRVA, satisfying all other requirements for compensation.3
3 Because I have found that Petitioner has demonstrated a Table injury, there is no need to address
Respondent’s assertion that Petitioner has failed to establish actual causation.
8

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/08/22 Page 9 of 9
VI. 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-00596-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-12
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/06/2022) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0596V
UNPUBLISHED
AARON WESO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 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)
Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 23, 2019, Aaron Weso 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on
November 30, 2017. Petition at 3, 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 5, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On September 1, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $52,500.00. Proffer at
1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 4
award. Id. at 2. 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 $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/12/22 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
AARON WESO,
Petitioner, No. 19-569V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On March 22, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration. ECF No. 32. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
April 19, 2021, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 33. On
July 5, 2022, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to
compensation.1 ECF No. 36.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$52,500.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
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 July 5, 2022, entitlement decision.

Case 1:19-vv-00596-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/12/22 Page 4 of 4
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 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 of $52,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Claudia B. Gangi
CLAUDIA B. GANGI
Senior 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) 616-4138
Email: claudia.gangi@usdoj.gov
Dated: September 1, 2022
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2