VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00906
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00906
Petitioner: Dana Sherrod
Filed: 2019-06-20
Decided: 2022-09-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-09-25
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 99295

AI-assisted case summary:
Dana Sherrod filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine she received on September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). She further alleged that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. The respondent did not contest entitlement, recognizing that the Chief Special Master's factual finding that petitioner's left shoulder pain began within the 48-hour timeframe for a Table SIRVA claim was the law of the case. The respondent agreed that Sherrod had no recent history of shoulder pain, that the onset occurred within 48 hours after vaccination, that the pain was limited to the shoulder of injection, and that no other condition explained the pain. Based on the record and the respondent's position, the Chief Special Master found Sherrod entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, indicating that Sherrod should be awarded $99,295.71, comprised of $95,000.00 in pain and suffering and $4,295.71 in past unreimbursable expenses. Sherrod agreed with this proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Sherrod the lump sum of $99,295.71.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00906-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-24
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/18/2022) regarding 34 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0906V
UNPUBLISHED
DANA SHERROD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 18, 2022
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)
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On June 20, 2019, Dana Sherrod filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her left
shoulder on September 25, 2017. 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-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 9
After review of the record and other filings, and for the reasons discussed below, I
find that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain likely began within the 48-hour timeframe for the
Table claim.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. Sherrod filed her petition for compensation along with medical record exhibits
in June 2019. (ECF No. 1, 5-6). Fourteen months later, Respondent filed a status report
stating that he was willing to engage in settlement discussions. (ECF No. 24). The parties
attempted to informally resolve the case over the next six months, but were unable to do
so. (ECF No. 27). Respondent was thus ordered to file his report pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 4(c).
On April 9, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4 (c) Report contesting entitlement in
this case. (ECF No. 28). Specifically, Respondent argued that Petitioner’s Table SIRVA
claim failed because she had not established that the onset of her shoulder pain began
within 48 hours after receiving her flu vaccination on September 25, 2017. Respondent’s
Report at 7. In support, Respondent noted that on October 3, 2017 (eight days after
vaccination), Petitioner presented to the office of her primary care physician for a follow-
up exam regarding her hypertension and insomnia – but did not report any shoulder pain
or vaccine related complaints. Id.; citing Ex. 6 at 252-54.3
Thereafter, the parties filed a status report requesting that I rule on the issue of
onset from the record without additional briefing. My ruling is set forth below.
II. Issue
The issue presented for resolution is whether the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder
pain occurred within 48 hours after vaccination, as required by the Vaccine Injury Table.
42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination) and 100.3(c)(10).
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
§ 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.
3 Respondent also argued that Petitioner has not established that she suffered a non-Table injury because
there is insufficient evidence that the vaccine administration caused her to suffer a left shoulder injury and
because she has not filed an expert report supporting her claim. Id. at 8.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 9
§ 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). However, 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 & Hum. Servs., 997
F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony
must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” § 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may be
made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of the
3

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 4 of 9
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. Findings of Fact
I make the following findings after a complete review of the record to include all
medical records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, and any additional evidence
filed. Specifically, I observe as follows:
 Ms. Sherrod received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on September 25, 2017. Ex.
1 at 1. She was 52-years-old and the time and an avid runner. Ex. 6 at 32. She
states in her affidavit that she completed 66 marathons between 1999 and 2014.
Ex. 15 at 1.
 Ms. Sherrod’s medical history includes diverticulitis, ovarian cyst, and
hypertension. Ex. 6 at 11, 38. She was involved in a motor vehicle accident in
November 2015 which caused bilateral neck, shoulder, and mid-back pain. Id. at
42. She had no complaints related to this motor vehicle accident in January 2017
during her annual physical exam. Ex. 6 at 237-240.
 On October 3, 2017, eight days after vaccination, Petitioner presented to her
primary care physician in follow up for several chronic conditions including
hypertension and insomnia. Ex. 6 at 252. There is no mention of any shoulder
complaints during this visit.
 On November 7, 2017, 43 days after vaccination, Ms. Sherrod presented to the
office of her primary care physician (PCP) complaining of “cough, fatigue, nasal
congestion, throat discomfort, and left deltoid pain after flu shot.” Ex. 6 at 256.
Certified Physician Assistant (PA-C) Donna White noted that Ms. Sherrod
received a flu shot at work and that Petitioner “complains of continuing pain in
that arm that [is] affecting the way her arm moves.” Id. On examination, PA-C
White noted that there was pain at the shoulder with motion (Id. at 258), and that
there was a possibility that a “cutaneous nerve could have been nicked during
4

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 5 of 9
injection…” Id. at 258-59. Ms. Sherrod was administered a steroid injection in her
left shoulder and was instructed to ice the area of pain twice daily, and to take
over-the-counter medications as needed. Id. PA-C White also provided a “To
Whom It May Concern” letter advising that Ms. Sherod had “experienced deltoid
pain after receiving [a] flu shot.” Id. at 255.
 On December 28, 2017, Ms. Sherrod returned to PA-C White with a complaint of
“pain in the arm.” Ex. 6 at 260. PA-C White noted that Petitioner returned in
follow up regarding pain in her arm “due to receiving the flu shot back in
September 25. Since then she states she has been having pain in area of
injection; does not radiate.” Id. On examination, PA-C White noted “palpable
spasm posterosuperior to deltoid tendon” but that range of motion was normal.
Id. at 261-262. She recommended Ms. Sherrod return in two weeks. Id.
 On January 24, 2018, Petitioner called her PCP’s office reporting that her “pain is
still present after flu shot.” Ex. 6 at 263.
 On February 1, 2018, Petitioner presented to Dr. Louis A. Torres, her PCP, for a
cough and in follow up for her shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 264. Petitioner reported
that she “continues to have pain in left upper arm due to flu injection in
September… P[atien]t has tried oral NSAIDS for shoulder [without] help.” Id.
Upon examination, Dr. Torres noted tenderness to palpation in the mid-lateral left
deltoid with definite swelling in a three centimeter area. Id. at 266. He ordered a
sonogram of the left deltoid muscle. Id.
 Ms. Sherrod underwent a left shoulder ultrasound on February 19, 2018, which
was normal. Ex. 6 at 272.
 On March 19, 2018, Ms. Sherrod presented to Dr. Mitchell Fagelman at
OrthoTexas Orthopedics & Sports Medicine for an examination. Ex. 5 at 50. The
notes from this visit state “[t]he symptom(s) started DOI [Date of Injury]
9/25/2017” as a result of flu shot administered on that date. Id. On examination,
Dr. Fagelman noted tenderness present at the “A/C joint, acromion, proximal
humerus, greater tuberosity and scapula.” Id. at 51. He also noted reduced range
of motion with the left shoulder, although Ms. Sherrod’s strength was intact.
Several specialized tests, including the Hawkin’s, Neer’s, and resisted external
rotation tests were positive. Id. An x-ray of the left shoulder showed mild AC joint
arthritis, but was otherwise normal. Id. at 52. Dr. Fagelman’s impression was left
shoulder bursitis and he administered another left subacromial injection. Id. He
prescribed physical therapy with strict instructions on performing the exercises
daily. Id.
5

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 6 of 9
 From March 26, 2018, to May 21, 2018, Ms. Sherrod underwent seven sessions
of physical therapy. See generally Ex. 9. At the initial examination, the physical
therapist noted “P[atien]t reports l[eft] shoulder pain and stiffness began on
09/25/17 after receiving a flu shot.” Ex. 9 at 2. She was discharged on May 21,
2018, to a home exercise plan when it appeared that Ms. Sherrod’s symptoms
were worsening from PT. Id. at 14.
 On May 25, 2018, Petitioner underwent an MRI of her left shoulder. Ex. 4 at 2.
The impression was “[f]ull-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear with partial
retraction from interstitial delamination.” Id.
 On June 4, 2018, Ms. Sherrod presented to Dr. Fagelman who, after reviewing
the results from the MRI, recommended that Petitioner proceed with surgery
“[d]ue to the full-thickness component of the tear.” Ex. 3 at 36. Ms. Sherrod
agreed to proceed with surgery. Id.
 On the pre-operative evaluation sheet, Ms. Sherrod listed the date that her
symptoms as occurring on September 25, 2017, as a result of the flu shot. Ex. 5
at 55.
 Petitioner underwent a pre-operative examination on June 5, 2018, Ex. 3 at 30,
and underwent a rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, debridement
and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis surgery on June 22, 2018. Id. at 9, 36,
53-54. The operative note from the surgery states that “[d]iagnostic arthroscopy
showed upper rolled border of the subscapularis tear with biceps subluxation and
mild tearing. There was an articular side tear of the anterior aspect of the
supraspinatus… There was a type II SLAP tear…The subacromial space showed
extensive fraying of the coracoacromial ligament. There was a concomitant high-
grade bursal-sided tear at the side of the articular tear approximately 90%.” Id. at
54.
 At her first post-operative visit on June 25, 2018, Ms. Sherrod was noted to be
healing well, her incisions were clean, dry, and intact, and her pain was
controlled. Ex. 5 at 46. She was instructed to follow up in two weeks. Id.
 Ms. Sherrod began physical therapy on July 31, 2018. Ex. 5 at 37. The date of
injury/onset is listed in the PT notes as September 25, 2017. Id. Under
mechanism of injury, the physical therapist notes “P[atien]t reports l[eft] shoulder
pain after flu shot.” Id. at 24. Ms. Sherrod underwent eight PT sessions over a six
week period, but still had some left shoulder tightness and weakness at her last
visit. Id. at 3.
6

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 7 of 9
 On September 14, 2018, Dr. Fagelman noted that Ms. Sherrod’s incision had
“fully healed” and that her range of motion was “acceptable.” He encouraged Ms.
Sherrod to begin strength training as her left shoulder tendon was “only 50%
strong.” Ex. 11 at 2.
 By December 13, 2018, Ms. Sherrod reported “0” on the intensity of pain scale
and denied any left shoulder pain, but still had weakness. Ex. 11 at 3. Dr.
Fagelman discharged Ms. Sherrod from the clinic noting that “full recovery can
take up to a year.” Id. at 5. She was instructed to follow up as needed. Id.
 Ms. Sherrod filed two affidavits to explain the circumstances she recalled
surrounding her receipt of the flu vaccine and to explain her delay in seeking
medical treatment for her shoulder. Ex. 13, 15. She stated that on September 25,
2017, the “vaccine was injected high on my left arm, and I had sharp pain
immediately during and after the shot. I went home that night and took some
Tylenol, hoping the throbbing would go away, but had problems sleeping due to
discomfort.” Ex. 13 at 1, ¶4. Regarding the delay in seeking treatment, Ms.
Sherrod explained that she is an avid runner, completing 66 marathons between
1999 and 2014. Ex. 15 at 1, ¶1. As such, she was used to experiencing many
aches and pains from her long runs, knowing that recovery from a marathon can
take “anywhere from 5-10 days.” Id. at ¶2. She did not go to a physician “unless
the ache or pain did not go away.” Id. Ms. Sherrod also states that she did not
mention her shoulder pain to her physician during the October 3, 2017 visit, just
eight days after vaccination, because “I thought it was going to go away…” Id. at
2, ¶5.
 Ms. Sherrod also filed an affidavit from her husband, John Sherrod, who
corroborated Petitioner’s statements that she “rarely” complained of pain,
especially if the pain was minor. Ex. 16 at 1. Regarding the vaccination at issue,
Mr. Sherrod also recalled that Petitioner “mentioned that the shot hurt far more
than normal at the time of the injection and then was quite painful over the first
few days.” Id.
V. Ruling Regarding Onset
The parties have elected not to filing briefs regarding the issue of onset, and
instead have requested that I rule on the issue based on the current record. In reviewing
the Rule 4(c) Report, I observe that Respondent’s argument against a finding of 48-hour
onset of shoulder pain is largely based on a single medical record, dated eight days after
Ms. Sherrod was vaccinated, which makes no mention of any shoulder injury.
Respondent’s Report at 7. Respondent particularly emphasizes that the notes from this
visit state that Petitioner was “doing well and had no current complaints.” Id.; Ex, 6 at 252.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 8 of 9
Ms. Sherrod’s physical exam at this time was also unremarkable. Because Ms. Sherrod
did not specifically complain of shoulder pain within 48 hours to a physician, Respondent
states that onset cannot be preponderantly “timed” to have begun within two days.4 Id.
Admittedly, Petitioner well could have complained of her shoulder pain at the time
of this treatment event, but did not. Nevertheless, the record is replete with instances later
where Petitioner reported that her left shoulder pain began at, or immediately following
her September 25, 2017 vaccination. Indeed, she consistently did so after the first record
in which she directly sought treatment. And although she waited 43 days before reporting
her shoulder pain, she has provided a credible explanation for waiting – that her activities
as a runner made her less inclined to immediately seek treatment for what could, in her
experience, constitute merely a transient delay. I thus do not find that the single initial
record that omits a reference to immediate pain should be given so much weight herein
that it cuts against a favorable onset finding.
In addition, the 43-day gap from purported onset to treatment is not inconsistent
with what other Program petitioners experience, based on the assumption that their pain
is likely transitory. Many SIRVA cases feature medical record notations from physicians
recommending that a patient wait a period of time after vaccination to allow time for the
shoulder pain to fade before seeking treatment. Subsequent records all corroborate the
injury and onset, and the Vaccine Act expressly does not obligate claimants to prove
onset issues with evidence from within the alleged timeframe in any event. Section
13(b)(2).
Another factor that weighs in favor of a finding of 48-hour onset of left shoulder
pain is the absence of any statement or record that places the onset of Ms. Sherrod’s left
shoulder pain outside the 48-hour window. By contrast, there are many instances where
Ms. Sherrod reports that her pain began on the day of vaccination. See e.g., Ex. 6 at 260
(regarding pain in her arm “due to receiving the flu shot back in September 25 … Since
then she states she has been having pain in area of injection.”); Ex. 5 at 50 (“[t]he
symptom(s) started DOI [Date of Injury] 9/25/2017” as a result of flu shot administered on
that date); Ex. 9 at 2 (“P[atien]t reports l[eft] shoulder pain and stiffness began on 09/25/17
after receiving a flu shot.”)
Here, as in other cases, Respondent argues that a special master cannot rely on
the statements of the petitioner alone. See e.g., Juno v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 18-643, 2021 WL 4782691, at * 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 13, 2021). But the
Federal Circuit has expressly recognized that witness testimony on issues pertaining to
4 Respondent also notes that Petitioner had full range of motion during the November 7, 2017, visit.
However, the QAI does not require that reduced range of motion, unlike shoulder pain, occur within 48
hours of vaccination. Later records do establish that Ms. Sherrod had a reduced range of motion. See, e.g.,
Ex. 5 at 51.
8

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/24/22 Page 9 of 9
fact matters like symptoms onset can be proven by reliance on testimonial evidence (even
if the evidence must be weighed against the records themselves, which continue to have
evidentiary significance). Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1383. Respondent has not identified any
inconsistencies or discrepancies in the medical records. All references to onset clearly
relate Petitioner’s left shoulder pain as occurring immediately after vaccination. Taken as
a whole, I find the sworn testimony of Ms. Sherrod to be credible and in agreement with
all of the contemporaneously created treatment records, and it provides a rationale for a
finding in her favor.
Weighing the evidence overall, I find that Petitioner has met her burden, and thus
that onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
VI. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact regarding onset of Ms. Sherrod’s left shoulder pain,
Respondent should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of
Petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, July 1, 2022, an
amended Rule 4(c) Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the above
fact-finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00906-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/30/2022) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0906V
UNPUBLISHED
DANA SHERROD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 30, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On June 20, 2019, Dana Sherrod 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 an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Petition at 4. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 30, 2022, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report (after I issued
Findings of Fact on May 18, 2022, finding that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began within
the 48-hour timeframe for her Table SIRVA claim) in which he states that he does not
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-00906-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2
contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 2. Specifically, Respondent states that “[r]ecognizing that the Chief Special
Master’s factual finding that petitioner’s left shoulder pain began within the forty-eight-
hour timeframe for a Table claim is the law of the case, respondent advises that he will
not defend the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of
Special Masters.” Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner had no recent history
of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within
forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the
shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and, no other condition or abnormality,
such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s left shoulder pain”. Id.
at 7. Respondent states that based on the record as it now stands, and subject to his right
to appeal my factual finding, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all
legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
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-00906-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-02
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/03/2022) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0906V
UNPUBLISHED
DANA SHERROD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 3, 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)
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 20, 2019, Dana Sherrod 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 as a result of an
influenza vaccination she received on September 25, 2017. Petition at ¶¶ 18-19. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 30, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her left shoulder injury. ECF No. 37. On August 2, 2022, Respondent
filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be
awarded $99,295.71 (comprised of $95,000.00 in pain and suffering and $4,295.71 in
past unreimbursable expenses). Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented
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-00906-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 5
that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $99,295.71 (comprised of $95,000.00 in pain and suffering and
$4,295.71 in past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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-00906-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
___________________________________
)
DANA SHERROD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-906V
v. ) Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On June 20, 2019, Dana Sherrod (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”
or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine she received on September 25, 2017. On June 30, 2022, respondent filed an
Amended Rule 4(c) Report electing not to defend this case and requesting a ruling on the record,
in light of the Findings of Fact by the Chief Special Master on May 18, 2022. ECF Nos. 34, 36.
On June 30, 2022, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 37.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $95,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $4,295.71. 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 following1: a lump sum payment of $99,295.71, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Dana Sherrod: $99,295.712
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the
Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties waive
their 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 entitlement
decision.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00906-UNJ Document 45 Filed 09/02/22 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s James V. Lopez
James V. Lopez
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-3655
Fax: (202) 616-4310
Email: james.lopez@usdoj.gov
Date: August 2, 2022
3