VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00804
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00804
Petitioner: Michael Thomas
Filed: 2019-05-31
Decided: 2022-03-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-16
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 62951

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael Thomas filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 31, 2019, alleging he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination received on September 16, 2018. The respondent initially opposed compensation, asserting that the vaccine administration record (VAR) indicated the vaccination was administered in the left deltoid, not the right shoulder as alleged by the petitioner. Following a ruling on entitlement issued on December 29, 2021, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, which found preponderant evidence that the vaccination occurred in the petitioner's right shoulder, the respondent amended their position. In an amended Rule 4(c) report filed on December 27, 2021, the respondent stated they would not defend the case on other grounds and submitted that the petitioner had otherwise satisfied the criteria for SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table and the Quality Assurance Initiative (QAI). The respondent further conceded that the petitioner was entitled to compensation, noting that the petitioner had no recent history of right shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after the vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder where the vaccine was administered; no other condition explained the pain; and the petitioner suffered residual effects for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Corcoran found the petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on February 9, 2022, the respondent filed a proffer on the award of compensation, agreeing to a total award of $62,951.02. This amount included $60,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,951.02 for past unreimbursable expenses. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision on March 14, 2022, awarding the petitioner the proffered lump sum payment. Petitioner's counsel was Leah Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and respondent's counsel was Ronalda Kosh from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Michael Thomas alleged a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination received on September 16, 2018. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing the vaccine was administered in the left shoulder. However, following a ruling on entitlement by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 29, 2021, which found preponderant evidence of vaccination in the right shoulder, the respondent conceded entitlement. The respondent's amended report on December 27, 2021, stated they would not defend on other grounds and that petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table. The respondent agreed that petitioner had no prior right shoulder issues, experienced onset within 48 hours of vaccination, pain was localized to the vaccinated shoulder, no other cause was identified, and residual effects lasted over six months. The case was compensated via a stipulation and proffer filed February 9, 2022, and a decision on March 14, 2022, awarding a lump sum of $62,951.02 ($60,000.00 for pain and suffering, $2,951.02 for past unreimbursable expenses). The theory of causation is based on the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA. Petitioner was represented by Leah Durant, and respondent by Ronalda Kosh. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the entitlement ruling and damages decision.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00804-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-10-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/23/2021) regarding 36 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0804V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL THOMAS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ronalda Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On May 31, 2019, Michael Thomas 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September
16, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
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-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish
the vaccination alleged as causal in this case was administered to Petitioner’s right
deltoid, as he has alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On November 3, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report asserting that
Petitioner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a
Table injury, and therefore was not entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. ECF
28. Specifically, Respondent argued that “[t]he contemporaneous vaccine administration
record clearly reflects that [P]etitioner’s September 16, 2018 flu vaccine was administered
into [P]etitioner’s left deltoid, not his right shoulder as alleged.” Id. at 8 (emphasis in
original).
After a status conference, Petitioner was provided with the opportunity to submit
any additional evidence related to the site of vaccination, and he filed an affidavit from
Mr. Kenneth Newnes, a friend. After reviewing this record, Respondent indicated that he
would continue to defend the case. ECF 31. Petitioner then requested that he be allowed
the opportunity to file a motion for ruling on the record, and he did so on July 6, 2021.
ECF 33. Respondent filed his response on August 6, 2021, and Petitioner filed his reply
on August 19, 2021. ECF 34; ECF 35. Therefore, this matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in his right
arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
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).
2

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 7
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. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
In fact, 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 the contents of 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).
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 Section 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).
3

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 4 of 7
IV. Finding of Fact
I have conducted a complete review of the record, including all medical records,
affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence filed. I make the following
findings of fact:
• Petitioner received a flu vaccine at a CVS pharmacy on September 16,
2018. Ex 1.
• The Vaccine Administration Record (VAR) pertaining to this vaccination is
computer-generated, and includes a preprinted vaccine lot number,
manufacturer, and expiration date. Ex 1 at 2. The site of vaccination is listed
as “Left Deltoid.” Id. The VAR includes a handwritten signature and date
from Petitioner and the handwritten signature of the vaccine administrator.
Id.
• On October 1, 2018, Petitioner presented to East Bay Medical Center for
an “immediate care” visit. Ex 2 at 7. He reported progressive right shoulder
pain after receiving the flu shot. Id. Petitioner stated that the “shot was given
very high,” physically pointing to the subacromial region of his right
shoulder. Id. Examination of the right upper extremity revealed a “well-
circumscribed 3 cm” area of swelling with tenderness “anterior to [the]
subacromial region,” tenderness in the subacromial and acromioclavicular
region of the right shoulder, and right shoulder abduction limited to 30
degrees. Id.
• An MRI of Petitioner’s right shoulder performed on October 24, 2018,
revealed “marked sprain or partial-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus
tendon,” subacromial and subdeltoid bursitis, and tear of the superior
labrum. Ex 2 at 55.
• On October 25, 2018, Petitioner presented for an orthopedic consultation
with Dr. Philip Christ, at which time he reported that he began experiencing
decreased range of motion and severe pain in his right shoulder after
receiving the flu shot at CVS. Ex 2 at 51. During the appointment, Petitioner
physically indicated (by pointing) that he received the injection in the right
deltoid area. Id. at 52.
4

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 5 of 7
• On November 16, 2018, Petitioner presented to Next Step Physical Therapy
for an intake evaluation. Ex 3 at 55. Petitioner reported “development of
right shoulder pain” following an “excessively proximal flu injection.” Id.
• Dr. Mark Ritch, a neurologist, evaluated Petitioner on January 24, 2019. Ex
4 at 6. During the appointment, Petitioner reported pain developing after a
flu shot “in the right deltoid muscle” on September 16, 2018. Id. Dr. Ritch’s
assessment included “[r]ight deltoid pain and weakness after a flu shot.” Id.
• At four subsequent appointments with Dr. Christ in 2019, Petitioner
reiterated that his right shoulder pain “began after a flu shot.” Ex 2 at 40, 42;
Ex 9 at 1, 3.
• In his affidavit, Petitioner averred that he received the flu shot in his right
shoulder, which caused “excruciating pain and limited movement of [his]
right shoulder and arm.” Ex 8 at ¶ 1.
• Petitioner submitted an affidavit from Kenneth Newnes, who accompanied
Petitioner to the pharmacy on the day he received his flu shot. Ex 10. Mr.
Newnes states that he received the flu shot prior to Petitioner and that he
sat in a chair where his left shoulder “was up against the wall while the
pharmacist administered the shot in my right shoulder.” Id. at ¶ 1. Mr.
Newnes also avers that Petitioner sat in the same position when he received
his flu shot and that he (Mr. Newnes) watched the pharmacist administer
the vaccine in Petitioner’s right shoulder. Id. Mr. Newnes further asserts that
Petitioner began complaining of right shoulder pain later that day and
continued to complain of right shoulder pain and difficulty lifting his right arm
“the next day . . . [and] every day . . . for a few weeks.” Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
As discussed in other decisions, consistent reporting to treating physicians that a
shoulder injury was associated with a specific vaccination in the same shoulder can serve
as probative evidence that can overcome a contradictory vaccine administration form.
See e.g., Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at
*13-14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Mogavero v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 18-1197V, 2020 WL 4198762 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 12, 2020); Hanna v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1455V, 2021 WL 3486248 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mster. July
15, 2021); Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL
1940435, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021).
5

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 6 of 7
In addition, it appears the VAR in this case contains computer generated
information. As observed in other SIRVA cases, it is not unusual for the information
regarding site of vaccination in computerized systems to be incorrect. See, e.g., Desai,
2020 WL 4919777, at *14; Rodgers, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5; Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9,
2018); see also Mezzacapo, 2021 WL 1940435, at *6 ([t]his is an issue that arises
repeatedly in the specific context of . . . SIRVA claims [because] pharmacy vaccine
administration records are not necessarily reliable in documenting [the] injection site”).
Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing
on issues pertaining to situs, they are not per se reliable simply because they come first
– and in fact the nature of their creation provides some basis for not accepting them at
face value, absent persuasive evidence that they reflect a treater’s agency in identifying
situs.
In this case, Petitioner consistently reported right shoulder pain which he attributed
to his September 2018 vaccination. He also provided this information during his
“immediate care” visit within two weeks of vaccination and on multiple occasions to
various medical personnel over the next year.3 And Petitioner’s subsequent statements
to his treatment providers are further consistent with those made in his petition and sworn
affidavit.
The only contrary evidence is the immediate vaccination confirmation record – the
VAR – which indicates a left arm vaccination. Respondent argues that the VAR’s
contemporaneous quality is grounds to give it substantially more weight than other
subsequent evidence. ECF 34. However, as discussed above, all treatment records in
this case contain information regarding examinations and observations of Petitioner’s
right arm/shoulder. Further, these records universally describe a right shoulder injury. The
medical records, combined with the affidavits of Petitioner and Mr. Newnes,4 provide good
reason for discounting the reliability of the notation regarding situs on the VAR.
3 In cases where I have determined that a petitioner provided sufficient evidence to rebut the site of
administration listed in the vaccine record, the medical records demonstrated consistent and multiple
reports of pain attributed to the vaccination alleged as being administered in the injured shoulder, along
with efforts to obtain treatment close in time to vaccination. See, e.g., Gallo v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 18-1298V, 2019 WL 7496617, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 5, 2019); Rodgers v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); cf.
Marion v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0495V, 2020 WL 7054414, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 27, 2020) (Petitioner failed to rebut the site of administration listed on the vaccine record when he did
not complain of pain in the allegedly injured shoulder until more than six months after vaccination, did not
attribute his shoulder pain to the vaccine until an additional three months thereafter, and sought medical
treatment for other conditions during the first six months after vaccination without mention of shoulder pain).
4 Respondent contends that Mr. Newnes’s affidavit should be afforded little weight because it was prepared
years after the date of vaccination and for the purpose of litigation. ECF 34. However, the Federal Circuit
recently held that while a lay witness may not be competent to testify as to causation or medical diagnosis,
6

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/27/21 Page 7 of 7
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the vaccination
alleged as causal in this case was administered to Petitioner in the right deltoid on
September 16, 2018.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my finding of fact regarding the site of Petitioner’s vaccination, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Respondent shall file a status report regarding his current position by no
later than Monday, October 25, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
“the same is not true for sworn testimony as to facts within the witness’s personal knowledge, such as the
receipt of a vaccine and the timing and severity of symptoms.” James-Cornelius v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mr. Newnes accompanied Petitioner when he received his
vaccine; therefore, he clearly had personal knowledge of the events of that day. While Mr. Newnes’s
affidavit, standing alone, might not serve as preponderant evidence to support a finding of situs, it closely
aligns with the treatment records and Petitioner’s affidavit, and further supports a finding that the flu vaccine
was administered in Petitioner’s right arm.
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00804-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-02-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/29/2021) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0804V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL THOMAS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 29, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ronalda Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 31, 2019, Michael Thomas 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on
September 16, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 3, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he opposed
compensation, asserting that the contemporaneous VAR reflects that Petitioner’s flu
vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, not his right shoulder as alleged. ECF
28 at 8. After allowing the parties the opportunity to file briefs, I issued a ruling finding that
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 2
there is preponderant evidence to establish that the flu vaccination alleged as causal was
administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder. ECF 36 at 7. On December 27, 2021,
Respondent filed an amended Rule 4 report in which he “advise[d] that he will not defend
the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special
Masters.” ECF 41 at 2. While preserving his right to appeal my Findings of Fact,
Respondent “submits that [P]etitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and the [QAI] for [SIRVA].” Id. at 2-3.
Based on the record as it now stands, Respondent states that he does not contest
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. ECF 41 at 9. More specifically,
Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his right shoulder;
the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular
vaccination; Petitioner’s pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain
Petitioner’s right shoulder pain. Id. In addition, Petitioner suffered the residual effects of
his condition for more than six months. Id.
Therefore, in view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00804-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-14
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/09/2022) regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0804V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL THOMAS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 9, 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)
Leah Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ronalda Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 31, 2019, Michael Thomas 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on
September 16, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 29, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a right SIRVA. On February 9, 2022, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$62,951.02. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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-00804-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 5
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 $62,951.02 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, consisting
of the following:
1. $60,000.00 in pain and suffering; and
2. $2,951.02 in past unreimbursable expenses.
These amounts represent 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-00804-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
MICHAEL THOMAS, )
)
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-804V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On May 31, 2019, Michael Thomas (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”).
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered in his
right shoulder on September 16, 2018. See Petition at 1. On December 27, 2021, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report
advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner
received the flu vaccine in his right arm, and the medical evidence submitted in this case,
respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 41. On December 29, 2021, the Chief Special Master issued a
Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 42.
1 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 29, 2021, entitlement decision.

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 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 he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $2,951.02. 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 $62,951.02, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Michael Thomas: $62,951.02
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
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 medical
expenses, future lost wages, future loss earnings, and future pain and suffering.

Case 1:19-vv-00804-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Ronalda E. Kosh
RONALDA E. KOSH
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) 616-4476
Email: ronalda.kosh@usdoj.gov
DATED: February 9, 2022