VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00952
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00952
Petitioner: Donna Bell
Filed: 2019-07-01
Decided: 2024-11-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-18
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and lymphedema
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 47500

AI-assisted case summary:
Donna Bell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 1, 2019. She alleged that after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 18, 2016, she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and lymphedema. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused petitioner's injury. Despite the denial, the parties reached a settlement. On October 21, 2024, they filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle the case. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth adopted the parties' stipulation. The settlement included a lump sum payment of $47,500.00, payable to Donna Bell, as compensation for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details, or expert testimony presented.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Donna Bell alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and lymphedema following an influenza vaccination on October 18, 2016. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement, and Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth adopted their joint stipulation. The settlement awarded a lump sum of $47,500.00 to petitioner Donna Bell. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. Attorneys for the petitioner were Heather Bonnet-Hebert, Esq., and for the respondent was Catherine Stolar, Esq. The decision was issued by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth on November 18, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00952-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-11
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/12/2023) regarding 39 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0952V
UNPUBLISHED
DONNA BELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 12, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset and Site of
HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccination; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Heather M. Bonnet-Hebert, Feingold Bonnet-Hebert, P.C., New Bedford, MA, for
Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On July 1, 2019, Donna Bell filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine she received on October 18,
2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 10
For the reasons discussed below, I find that although there is preponderant
evidence that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was likely administered to her left arm, Petitioner’s
Table SIRVA claim must be dismissed because the evidentiary record does not support
the conclusion that the requisite onset of her pain occurred within 48 hours following
administration of the flu vaccine. This leaves a possible causation-in-fact claim to be
adjudicated, however, so the matter will be transferred out of SPU for further proceedings
in that regard.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On October 5, 2020, about 15 months after the case was initiated, Respondent
filed a status report stating that he wished to engage in settlement discussions regarding
Petitioner’s vaccine claim. ECF No. 16. The parties continued to engage in negotiations
until August 25, 2022, when Petitioner filed (at my instruction) a Motion for Ruling on the
Record Regarding Entitlement (“Mot.”). ECF No. 37. On October 26, 2022, Respondent
filed a response to the motion (“Resp.”). ECF No. 38. The issues of site of vaccination
and onset are ripe for a fact ruling.
II. Issue
The following issues are contested: (1) whether Petitioner received the vaccination
alleged as causal in her right or left arm; and (2) whether Petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset after vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48
hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii)-(iii) (required onset for pain listed
in the QAI; pain and reduced range of motion limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered).3
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). The Federal Circuit has said that
3 Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s shoulder symptoms are likely due to underlying lymphatic issues
and that Petitioner has not preponderantly established a causation-in-fact claim. See Resp. at 16-17.
However, because Petitioner’s claim is to be transferred out of SPU, these issues are not decided herein.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 10
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. 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).
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).
Thus, 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).
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
3

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 10
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare not only the medical
records, testimony, but also 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). And
although later oral testimony that conflicts with medical records is less reliable as a
general matter, it is appropriate for a special master to credit a petitioner’s lay testimony
where is does not conflict with the contemporaneous records. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1382-
84.
IV. Finding of Fact
A. Site of Vaccination
Based on a review of the entire record, including all medical records and affidavits,
the arguments in Petitioner’s Motion and the arguments in Respondent’s opposition brief,
I find that the flu vaccine Petitioner received in October 2016 was likely administered in
her left arm, as she contends. The following points are particularly relevant to that finding:
• Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records reveal no injuries,
inflammation, or dysfunction in her left shoulder or arm. Petitioner had a
history of right shoulder pain and back surgery for radicular pain to her lower
extremities. Ex. 2 at 63; Ex. 5 at 10-11.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine at her employer, South Country Hospital,
in Wakefield, RI, on October 18, 2016. Ex.1 at 188. The vaccine
administration record does not indicate into which arm the vaccine was
administered. Id.
• Petitioner has stated that she received the vaccination in her left upper arm.
Ex. 7 at ¶1. Leah Arsenault, R.N. stated that she administered Petitioner’s
vaccination on October 18, 2016. Ex. 6 at ¶2. Nurse Arsenault also stated
that the vaccine was administered to Petitioner’s left arm. Id.
4

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 10
• At her first visit to her doctor for her shoulder pain, on November 10, 2016,
Petitioner reported that she had a swollen arm after a flu shot four weeks
prior. Ex. 2 at 4. On exam, Petitioner’s left arm was swollen and tender. Id.
• Petitioner returned to her doctor on November 30, 2016, with continued
complaints of left upper arm pain. Ex. 2 at 4. The doctor recorded that
Petitioner’s “pain all began after receiving a flu shot 6-8 weeks ago.” Id. On
exam, Petitioner had swelling in her left upper arm, severe pain with
rotation, and tenderness in her triceps. Id.
• On December 1, 2016, Petitioner had x-rays of her left shoulder and
humerus, and a venous doppler study of her left arm to rule out a deep vein
thrombosis. Ex. 1 at 21, 23.
• On December 9, 2016, Petitioner began a course of physical therapy. Ex. 4
at 185. She reported that she “received a flu shot on 10/18 with resulting
left [upper extremity] redness and swelling.” Id.
• On January 6, 2017, Petitioner presented to an orthopedist, Dr. Burns,
complaining of pain in her left arm. Ex. 3 at 8. She reported that “after she
received the flu shot, she had significant pain and swelling in her upper
arm.” Id. Dr. Burns examined Petitioner’s left arm and found edema and a
“fluid wave.” Id. The following day, Petitioner had an MRI of her left
humerus. Ex. 1 at 14.
The entirety of the record preponderantly supports the conclusion that Petitioner
more likely than not received the October 18, 2016 flu vaccine in her left arm.
I note the degree to which Petitioner was consistent when attributing her shoulder
pain to her vaccination when seeking treatment. At her first visit to her primary care
physician on November 10, 2016, Petitioner reported swelling and pain after her flu shot.
Ex. 2 at 4. At that visit, Petitioner’s left arm was examined and found to be swollen and
tender. Id. When she returned three weeks later, Petitioner continued to complain of left
upper arm pain that “all began after receiving a flu shot.” Id. Again, Petitioner’s left arm
was examined and found to be swollen and painful with movement. Id. Petitioner made
similar statements at her initial physical therapy evaluation and to her orthopedist. See
Ex. 4 at 185; Ex. 3 at 8. Petitioner never complained of right shoulder pain.
Admittedly, Petitioner’s initial vaccine administration record is silent as to the site
of administration. Ex. 1 at 188. Petitioner’s affidavit and the affidavit of Leah Arsenault,
R.N., however, provide additional details about the administration that provide support for
her claim that she received the vaccination in her left arm. Petitioner explained that she
5

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 10
received the flu vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 7 at ¶1. Nurse Arsenault stated that she
administered the vaccine into Petitioner’s left arm and noted that she documented the
administration on the vaccine administration record.4 Ex. 6 at 2; Ex. 1 at 188. She also
recalled Petitioner telling her after the vaccination that she had pain, swelling, and
redness in her left upper arm. Id. at 3.
Given that the initial vaccine administration record is silent on the issue of situs,
this is not a case where a testimonial assertion on the disputed fact seeks to vary or
negate a record’s content. Thus, though it is well-settled that “oral testimony in conflict
with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight,” such testimony can
be credited where it provides detail that the record omits. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1383
(emphasis added). Here, Petitioner’s statements about the vaccination do not conflict with
the vaccine administration record, but provide detail that was not recorded at the time of
the vaccine or for which other documentary evidence cannot be obtained. And otherwise
there is no evidence in the record that Petitioner received the vaccine in her right arm.
There are other reasons to conclude as I do on this question. Petitioner’s medical
records show that she had no history of any pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her left
shoulder or arm before her flu vaccination. And she received treatment only to her left
shoulder, including physical examinations, x-rays, an MRI, a doppler venous study,
physical therapy, and surgery. Ex. 1 at 14, 21, 23; Ex. 2 at 4; Ex. 3 at 8; Ex. 4 at 185.
Overall, Petitioner’s own assertions are sufficiently corroborated by the medical
record to accept her contention of vaccine situs. I therefore find it more likely than not that
the vaccine alleged as causal in this case was administered to Petitioner in the left
shoulder on October 18, 2016.
B. Onset
Based on a review of the entire record, including all medical records and affidavits,
the arguments in Petitioner’s Motion, and the arguments in Respondent’s response
thereto, I find the following facts to be particularly relevant:
• Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records reveal no injuries,
inflammation, or dysfunction in her left shoulder or arm. Petitioner had a
history of right shoulder pain and back surgery for radicular pain to her lower
extremities. Ex. 2 at 63; Ex. 5 at 10-11.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine at her employer, South Country Hospital,
in Wakefield, RI, on October 18, 2016. Ex.1 at 188.
4 Nurse Arsenault’s signature appears on the vaccine administration record. Ex. 1 at 188.
6

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 10
• Petitioner stated that she received the vaccination in her left upper arm and
that she “experienced and reported pain immediately upon administration”
of the vaccine, and then later developed redness, edema, weakness, and
stiffness. Ex. 7 at ¶1-2. She thought her symptoms “would pass with time.”
Id. at ¶3.
• Leah Arsenault, R.N. stated that she administered Petitioner’s flu
vaccination on October 18, 2016. Ex. 6 at ¶2. She recalled that she saw
Petitioner at work “a day or two following” the vaccination, and that
Petitioner told her about her left shoulder pain, swelling, and redness.5 Id.
at 3. Both Petitioner and Nurse Arsenault remembered Nurse Arsenault
advising Petitioner to see her primary care physician if her symptoms did
not resolve or worsened. Ex. 6 at ¶3; Ex. 7 at ¶3.
• On October 19, 2016, the day after her vaccination, Petitioner presented to
her physical therapist for treatment on her lower back. Ex. 4 at 180. She
returned to her physical therapist on October 24, 2016, six days after her
vaccination, when she was discharged. Id. at 182-184. Neither record
contains any reference to left shoulder symptoms.
• On October 21, 2016, three days after her vaccination, Petitioner visited her
primary care physician for an annual physical. Ex. 2 at 4. That record does
not contain any references to left shoulder symptoms.
• On November 10, 2016, Petitioner reported to her primary care physician
that she had a swollen arm after a flu shot four weeks prior. Ex. 2 at 4. The
doctor recorded that Petitioner “had flu shot 4 weeks ago, had swollen arm
and applied ice, then heat, has taken Advil/Aleve with little relief.” Id. On
exam, Petitioner’s left arm was swollen and tender. Id. She was diagnosed
with an adverse reaction to vaccination and prescribed prednisone. Id. This
record does not specify when the swelling first manifested.
• Petitioner returned to her doctor on November 30, 2016, with continued
complaints of left upper arm pain. Ex. 2 at 4. The doctor recorded that
Petitioner’s “pain all began after receiving a flu shot 6-8 weeks ago.” Id. On
exam, Petitioner had swelling in her left upper arm, severe pain with
rotation, and tenderness in her triceps. Id.
5 Petitioner recalled the same interaction with Nurse Arsenault, placing it 24-48 hours after her
vaccination. Ex. 7 at ¶3.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 10
• On December 1, 2016, Petitioner had x-rays of her left shoulder and
humerus, and a venous doppler study of her left arm to rule out a deep vein
thrombosis. Ex. 1 at 21, 23.
• On December 9, 2016, Petitioner began a course of physical therapy. Ex. 4
at 185. She reported that she “received a flu shot on 10/18 with resulting
left [upper extremity] redness and swelling.” Id. Petitioner reported that “3-4
weeks ago she began to experience L shoulder pain and progressive loss
of mobility.” Id. A month from this date would be early November – not mid
to late October, when the vaccine was administered.
• On January 6, 2017, Petitioner presented to an orthopedist, to whom she
reported that “after she received the flu shot, she had significant pain and
swelling in her upper arm.” Ex. 3 at 8. She now reported (with specificity, for
the first time in the records) that “the onset was sudden with injury which
occurred on 10/11/2016[sic].” Id. Dr. Burns examined Petitioner’s left arm
and found edema and a “fluid wave.” Id. The following day, Petitioner had
an MRI of her left humerus. Ex. 1 at 14.
I acknowledge that the standard applied to resolving onset for an alleged Table
SIRVA is liberal, and will often permit a determination in a petitioner’s favor, especially in
the absence of fairly contemporaneous and direct statements within the petitioner’s
medical records to the contrary. However, not every case can be so preponderantly
established. Ultimately, the resolution of such fact issues involves weighing different items
of evidence against the overall record.
Here, Petitioner’s claims of immediate onset are offset against a record created
very near-in-time to vaccination, in which Petitioner did not mention any left shoulder
symptoms at three consecutive medical appointments. Although Petitioner and Nurse
Arsenault have submitted affidavits supporting onset of shoulder pain within the required
48-hour period, the first three post-vaccination records (from the October 19, 2016, and
October 24, 2016, visits with physical therapy and the October 21, 2016, annual physical)
specifically refute such contention. Ex. 2 at 4; Ex. 4 at 180-184.
Petitioner first linked her left shoulder pain to her flu shot at the time of her
appointment with her primary care physician on November 10, 2016 (23 days after her
vaccination) – but that record does not specifically place onset within 48 hours of
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 4. The doctor recorded that Petitioner “had flu shot 4 weeks ago,
had swollen arm and applied ice, then heat, has taken Advil/Aleve with little relief.” Id.
Three weeks later when she followed-up, Petitioner reported that her “pain all began after
receiving a flu shot 6-8 weeks ago,” still not providing any specific information about the
8

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 10
onset of her pain. Id. Then, when Petitioner presented for a physical therapy evaluation
on December 6, 2016, she reported that her shoulder pain began “3-4 weeks ago” – or
roughly early November – which coincides with when she first sought treatment from her
primary care physician (November 10, 2016). See Ex. 4 at 185. These records, all created
within the first two months after vaccination, suggest that the onset of Petitioner’s
shoulder pain occurred outside of the 48 hours required to establish a Table SIRVA.
(Swelling followed by shoulder pain later would not save the claim, even if the swelling
occurred in 48 hours of vaccination).
Further, the affidavit testimony provided directly contradicts the facts recorded in
the contemporaneous medical records. Petitioner stated that she “experienced and
reported pain immediately upon administration,” and mentioned her continuing pain to
Nurse Arsenault within 24-48 hours after her vaccination. Ex. 7 at ¶2. However, Petitioner
did not mention her shoulder pain to her medical providers, including her primary care
physician, during the same time period. There are situations in which compelling
testimony may be more persuasive than written records, such as where records are
deemed to be incomplete or inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 69
Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006) (“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this
rule should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for
its application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005) (“[w]ritten records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct.
726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). But not every SIRVA
claim can be so preponderantly established, and certainly not where the sequential and
contemporaneous record does not lend support to the Petitioner’s allegations.
Finally, Petitioner has not provided any credible explanation as to why she did not
report her left shoulder symptoms to her physical therapist or to her primary care
physician during her visits in the six days after her vaccination. Even if Petitioner believed
her symptoms would resolve with time, she reported visible redness and swelling in her
left upper arm within 24-48 hours of her vaccination, which worsened over time. Ex. 7 at
¶2-3. Both Petitioner and Nurse Arsenault recalled that Nurse Arsenault advised
Petitioner to see her primary care physician without symptoms. Ex. 6 at ¶3; Ex. 7 at ¶3.
Without any alternative explanation from Petitioner, it is reasonable to believe that if
Petitioner had the symptoms she reports in her affidavit within a day or so after her
vaccination, she would have reported them to her primary care physician at an annual
physical on October 21, 2016. There is no evidence that she did so.
9

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 10
Accordingly, I find Petitioner has not preponderantly established that onset of her
pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination – meaning that she cannot proceed in this
action with a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner has, however, a potential causation-in-fact
injury claim, so the matter will be transferred out of SPU in order to evaluate such an
alternative version of the claim.
Conclusion
Because Petitioner has not preponderantly established that the onset of her
shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, she cannot proceed in this action
with a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is therefore dismissed, for the
reasons set forth above and the case will be reassigned to a Special Master outside of
SPU.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00952-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/22/2024) regarding 62 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (dkj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-952V
Filed: October 22, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DONNA BELL, *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Heather Bonnet-Hebert, Esq., Feingold Bonnet-Hebert, P.C., New Bedford, MA, for petitioner.
Catherine Stolar, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Roth, Special Master:
On July 1, 2019, Donna Bell (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a left
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) and lymphedema after receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 18, 2016. Stipulation, filed October 21, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-4.
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On October 21, 2024, the parties
filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.
Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly
accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).
1

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 7
A lump sum of $47,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Donna Bell.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under §
300aa-15(a).
I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and
on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance
with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the
right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00952-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 7