VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01143
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01143
Petitioner: Catherine Jones
Filed: 2019-08-06
Decided: 2022-12-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-31
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 42500

AI-assisted case summary:
Catherine Jones filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 31, 2016. She further alleged that her injury lasted for more than six months. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 20, 2022, the court issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered to her right arm and that the onset of her right shoulder pain likely began within the 48-hour timeframe required to establish a Table SIRVA claim. Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) report on September 18, 2022, stating that he did not contest that Petitioner was entitled to compensation in light of the court's factual ruling. Respondent conceded that Petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Based on the record and Respondent's position, the court found Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on November 10, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, indicating Petitioner should be awarded $42,500.00 for all damages, which Petitioner agreed to. The court awarded Catherine Jones a lump sum payment of $42,500.00, representing compensation for all damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01143-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-23
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/20/2022) regarding 30 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1143V
UNPUBLISHED
CATHERINE JONES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 20, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset and Site of
HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccination; Flu Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On August 6, 2019, Catherine Jones 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”) administered on October 31,
2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished fact ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the fact ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 10
After a review of the record and other filings, and for the reasons discussed below,
I find that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered to her right arm, and that the onset of
her right shoulder pain likely began within the 48-hour timeframe required to establish a
Table SIRVA claim.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. Jones filed her petition for compensation along with medical record exhibits
from August to December 2019. (ECF No. 1, 11-12). Nearly one year later, on November
25, 2020, Respondent filed a status report stating that he did not believe engaging in
settlement discussions was appropriate and proposed filing his Rule 4(c) Report. (ECF
No. 20). That report was filed on January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 21).
Respondent argued in the Rule 4(c) Report that Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim
failed because her vaccination record stated that she received the flu vaccine in her left
shoulder, instead of her right shoulder as the petition alleges. Id. at 5. In addition,
Respondent argued that Petitioner has not established that the onset of her shoulder pain
began within 48 hours after receiving her flu vaccination on October 31, 2016.
Respondent’s Report at 5-6. Respondent noted that Petitioner did not report shoulder
pain to any medical provider for more than four months after vaccination. Id. at 6. In the
interim, Petitioner saw her primary care provider on December 8, 2016 (a little over a
month after vaccination), but did not report any shoulder pain. Id.; Ex. 2 at 46.
The parties subsequently filed briefing requesting a ruling on situs and onset. My
ruling is set forth below.
II. Issue
The following issues are contested: (1) whether Petitioner received the vaccination
alleged as causal in her right 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).
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.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 3 of 10
§ 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-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 4 of 10
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
A. Site of Vaccination
Based on a review of the entire record, including all medical records and affidavits,
the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, the arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for
Fact Ruling (“Motion”), and the arguments in the response thereto (“Response”), I find
that Petitioner’s October 31, 2016 flu vaccine was more likely than not administered in
her right arm, as she contends.
Only the initial vaccination record indicates that Ms. Jones received the flu vaccine
to her left shoulder. Ex. 15 at 10. All other medical records, however, document Ms.
Jones’s report that she received the flu vaccine to her right shoulder. Not a single record
(other than the vaccination record) contradicts her assertion. See e.g., Ex. 2 at 44 (March
7, 2017, “The patient…presents with a shoulder problem. The injury involved the right
shoulder…. Mrs. Jones comes in today with several months of shoulder pain. This started
after her flu shot”); Ex. 3 at 5 (March 14, 2017, “Catherine Jones is a 87 year old female
who presents to therapy today for evaluation of R[ight] Adhesive Capsulitis… Shoulder
has been problematic since October 2016. [P]t attributes this to getting her flu shot…”);
Ex. 4 at 7 (May 4, 2017, “Catherine R Jones presents to the office for evaluation of her
right shoulder. She presents accompanied by her daughter and notes that her shoulder
pain presented following a flu shot on 10/31/16”). Ms. Jones confirmed in her affidavit that
she received the flu vaccine on October 31, 2016, to her right shoulder. Ex. 18 at 1.
The overall medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s affidavit, establish that
Petitioner consistently and repeatedly reported to treaters right shoulder pain that was
caused by a flu vaccine received in that shoulder. These records provide sufficient
evidence that the vaccine was likely administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder to
overcome the contrary administration record (which lacks corroboration on its own). The
subsequent treatment records gain strength as well given their temporal proximity to the
4

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 5 of 10
date of vaccination. And there is no reason to give the single record of vaccine
administration more weight simply because it came first, in the absence of other evidence
that corroborates it.
B. Onset
I also find that the record evidence preponderates (albeit barely) in Petitioner’s
favor on the disputed onset issue. I find the following facts most relevant:
 Petitioner’s pre-vaccination records reveal a history of hypertension,
degenerative joint disease (of the back and neck areas), abdominal aortic
aneurysm, dyslipidemia, and osteopenia.
 Ms. Jones suffered a right shoulder dislocation in 2012 (Ex. 13 at 20). Petitioner
states that the injury resolved in 2012 (Ex. 13 at 21) and she received no further
treatment. Ex. 14 at 2. The medical records corroborate her statement, making
no mention of injuries, inflammation, or dysfunction of the right shoulder or arm
in the three years prior to vaccination. See generally Ex. 2.
 On October 31, 2016, Ms. Jones (87 years-old) received a flu vaccine at CVS
Pharmacy located in Farmville, Virginia. Ex. 15 at 10. The vaccination record
states that the vaccine was administered to Petitioner’s left deltoid. Id.
 On December 8, 2016, 38 days after vaccination, Petitioner saw her primary
care physician (“PCP”), Dr. Danielle Lewis, for a follow-up appointment
regarding hypertension and cholesterol. Ex. 2 at 46. During this visit, Ms. Jones
complained of right knee pain “occurring in a persistent pattern for weeks.” Id.
Id. There is no documented complaint of shoulder pain during this visit. Id.
 On March 7, 2017 (4 months, 7 days after vaccination), Petitioner presented to
Dr. Lewis complaining of shoulder pain. Dr. Lewis noted shoulder pain,
tenderness, frozen shoulder, and decreased range of motion. The note
indicated “onset was sudden month(s) ago… Ms. Jones comes in today with
several months of shoulder pain. This started after her flu shot. Her shoulder
has been stiff and painful.” Ex. 2 at 44. Petitioner was diagnosed with adhesive
capsulitis. Id. at 45.
 One week later, on March 14, 2017, Petitioner presented to physical therapist
(“PT”), Zachary Wood, at Centra Rehabilitation with complaints of shoulder
pain. PT Wood noted “Shoulder has been problematic since October 2016. [P]t
attributes this to getting her flu shot…” Ex. 3 at 5. On examination, Petitioner
5

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 6 of 10
demonstrated “limited and painful ROM [range of motion] during eval[uation].
MMT weak and painful in her R arm.” Id. at 7. PT Wood also noted that
Petitioner’s prior right shoulder dislocation “may impact overall prognosis.” Id.
 On May 4, 2017, Ms. Jones was evaluated by Dr. John Barnard at OrthoVirginia
located in Prospect, Virginia. Dr. Barnard noted “Catherine R Jones presents
to the office for evaluation of her right shoulder. She presents accompanied by
her daughter and notes that her shoulder pain presented following a flu shot on
10/31/16. She noted immediate pain that has not subsided. She initially
presented to her PCP who diagnosed her with adhesive capsulitis. She was
treated with formal PT without benefit. She notes that she discontinued PT
about 3 weeks ago. She localizes her pain at the mid to upper anterior upper
arm radiating along her biceps muscle belly. She notes that her pain is worse
at night and often keeps her from sleep. She notes a previous right shoulder
dislocation that was treated by Dr. Wombwell. She denies any numbness or
tingling.” Ex. 4 at 7. Dr. Barnard assessed Petitioner with adhesive capsulitis of
the right shoulder, complete tear of the right rotator cuff, and right shoulder
pain. Id. at 8. Dr. Barnard notes “I suspect that she has neuritis secondary to
her flu shot with a secondary mild frozen shoulder. She has a cuff tear that is
unrelated to her flu shot but it most likely related to her previous dislocation.
We will treat her for both.” Id.
 On June 15, 2017, during an appointment with Dr. Lewis, Petitioner still
complained of right shoulder pain with movement, although there was no
decrease in range of motion noted. Ex. 2 at 40.
 On April 23, 2018, Dr. Lewis noted that Petitioner was still complaining of
shoulder pain. Dr. Lewis noted “CHRONIC PAIN OF UPPER EXTREMITY:
This has been for 1.5 years since October 2016. This was caused by improper
administration of the influenza vaccine into her nerve. The technician reached
across a counter to give the vaccine and hit a nerve. She has had limited range
of motion and strength in that arm since that time. She has been unable to
sleep on her right side due to pain. she has undergone an extensive evaluation
by orthopedics for this. Her symptoms have never completely resolved.” Ex. 2
at 33.
 On October 15, 2018, Ms. Jones complains to Dr. Lewis that she “still ha[d]
right shoulder pain with certain movements. Her range of motion is full, but she
experiences significant pain with abduction. She began having pain after an
injury from flu vaccine. The flu vaccine was injected into the nerve about two
years ago.” Ex. 2 at 15.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 7 of 10
The disputed onset issue presents a very close call. However, the filed evidence
(which includes both medical records and Petitioner’s witness statements) preponderates
in favor of the conclusion that onset of her injury likely occurred close-in-time to
vaccination.
Admittedly, Respondent has raised a valid concern regarding the length of time
after vaccination that the injury is first documented in the medical records, as well as the
existence of an intervening instance in which shoulder pain was not mentioned. The most
problematic record is that from her December 8, 2016 appointment with Dr. Lewis, which
occurred 38 days after vaccination. Ex. 2 at 46. In this record, Ms. Jones is being seen in
follow up for her hypertension and cholesterol, and she complained only of right knee
pain. In her affidavit, however, Ms. Jones states that she did, in fact, complain to Dr. Lewis
of right shoulder pain since her flu vaccine, but Dr. Lewis “did not seem overly concerned”
about it and stated that “it would go away.” Ex. 18 at 2. She also explains that she delayed
mentioning shoulder pain until this point because this was when her next appointment
with Dr. Hughes was scheduled; she was 87 years old at the time and relied on her
daughter to drive her to and from her medical appointments. Id. at 1.
Besides the above, other evidence is also consistent with Petitioner’s onset
contentions. For example, Ms. Jones maintains that one day after vaccination, she
returned to CVS Pharmacy and complained to the pharmacist of her right shoulder pain,
but was told that “[t]his happens sometimes and it would get better.” Ex. 18 at 1.
Petitioner’s daughter, Debra Tharp – a licensed practical nurse – has also recalled that
her mother complained of “extreme pain and redness” to her right shoulder on November
1, 2016 - the day she received her flu shot. Ex. 17 at 1.
There is no dispute that Ms. Jones did not suffer from any right shoulder symptoms
in the three years prior to receiving the flu vaccine in October 2016. There is also no
evidence of any intervening injury or trauma in the medical records between October 2016
and March 2017 that would explain the sudden onset of her right shoulder pain and
resulting adhesive capsulitis. And the record corroborates the fact of subsequent injury –
even though, admittedly, there are no close-in-time treatment records. I also credit Ms.
Jones’s statement in her affidavit that she reported right shoulder pain to Dr. Lewis in
December 2016, but her complaints were not taken seriously.
Another factor that weighs in favor of a finding of 48-hour onset right shoulder pain
is the absence of any statement or record that places the onset of Ms. Jones’s right
shoulder pain outside the 48-hour window. Rather, Respondent can only point to
instances where onset, or the injury itself, is omitted. By contrast, there are at least five
different records where Ms. Jones reports that her pain began on, or immediately after,
the day of vaccination. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 44 (“onset was sudden month(s) ago… Ms.
Jones comes in today with several months of shoulder pain. This started after her flu shot.
7

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 8 of 10
Her shoulder has been stiff and painful”); Ex. 3 at 4 (“Shoulder has been problematic
since October 2016. [P]t attributes this to getting her flu shot…”); Ex. 4 at 7 (“Catherine R
Jones presents to the office for evaluation of her right shoulder. She presents
accompanied by her daughter and notes that her shoulder pain presented following a flu
shot on 10/31/16. She noted immediate pain that has not subsided…”); Ex. 2 at 33
(“CHRONIC PAIN OF UPPER EXTREMITY: This has been for 1.5 years since October
2016. This was caused by improper administration of the influenza vaccine into her
nerve…”); Ex. 2 at 15 (“She began having pain after an injury from flu vaccine. The flu
vaccine was injected into the nerve about two years ago.”)
Unquestionably, the four-month records gap from vaccination to the first efforts to
treat Ms. Jones’s alleged shoulder pain is problematic for Petitioner’s case. As
Respondent argues, it is reasonable to expect that the average Program claimant might
seek medical treatment sooner if in fact the person was experiencing sudden post-
vaccination pain. However, as noted above, claimants may often misperceive the extent
of their shoulder injury, or downplay its significance, leading them to delay treatment. See,
e.g., Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-830V, 2019 WL 1040410, at *9
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting a delay in seeking treatment for five-and-a-
half months because petitioner underestimated the severity of her shoulder injury);
Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at *5
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 30, 2018), review denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019) (finding a
48-hour onset of shoulder pain despite a nearly six-month delay in seeking treatment);
Marino v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-622V, 2018 WL 2224736, at *2 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2018) (noting a delay in seeking treatment for several months
due to petitioner’s work schedule and difficulty making appointments); Knauss v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23,
2018) (noting a three-month delay in seeking treatment).
Here, as in other cases, Respondent argues that a special master cannot rely on
the statements of the petitioner alone regarding a key element like onset. 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 fact matters can be proven by reliance on testimonial
evidence (even if that testimonial 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. And in this case, the relevant witness statements are not the only evidence in
favor of an onset finding consistent with a Table SIRVA claim. I am therefore not “solely”
relying on witness statements.
8

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 9 of 10
At bottom, the evidence preponderates, although just barely, in favor of a
determination that onset began in 48 hours of vaccination. Of course, the fact of
Petitioner’s delay in obtaining will bear on any damages to be awarded in this case, since
it either establishes a SIRVA mild enough to be tolerated for a long time, or Petitioner’s
own contributions to severity. But these considerations are separate from whether onset
occurred when Petitioner alleges.
C. Prior Right Shoulder Dislocation – Alternative Cause
The parties specifically requested that I rule on the issue of situs and onset in their
briefing. However, it appears that Petitioner also request that I rule on entitlement
(Petitioner’s Reply, ECF No. 29), although his initial motion only sought a factual ruling.
While I will not specifically rule on entitlement in this ruling, I will address the alternative
cause issue that Respondent has raised - that Ms. Jones’s prior shoulder dislocation is
the cause of her recent shoulder injury. Response at 5.
Based on the information contained in the medical records, I find that it was more
likely than not that Petitioner’s prior shoulder dislocation did not cause her recent shoulder
symptoms and injury after vaccination. In the three years prior to receiving the October
31, 2016 flu vaccination, there is no mention of any right shoulder pain, injuries, or
symptoms. In her affidavit, Ms. Jones stated that her shoulder dislocation injury was
treated and resolved in 2012, and the medical records support her statement. Ex. 13 at
21. While her prior dislocation may have affected her “overall prognosis” as her physical
therapist indicated (Ex. 3 at 5), the evidence preponderantly demonstrates that it did not
cause her most recent injury as Ms. Jones was asymptomatic for at least three years prior
to vaccination. I thus find that there is no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of
Petitioner’s affected shoulder that would explain her symptoms after vaccination.
D. Scheduling Order
Given my findings of fact, Respondent should evaluate and provide his current
position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
(1) By Monday, August 26, 2022, Petitioner shall file all updated medical
records.
9

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 31 Filed 08/23/22 Page 10 of 10
(2) Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, September 19, 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
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01143-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-11-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/19/2022) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1143V
UNPUBLISHED
CATHERINE JONES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 19, 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)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 6, 2019, Catherine Jones 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received
on October 31, 2016. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her injury lasted for
more than six months. Petition at 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 20, 2022, I issued Findings of Fact, finding that Petitioner’s “flu vaccine
was administered to her right arm, and that the onset of her right shoulder pain likely
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-01143-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 2
began within the 48-hour timeframe required to establish a Table SIRVA claim.” ECF No.
30, at 2.
On September 18, 2022, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which
he states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case
in light of my factual ruling. Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2. Specifically,
Respondent states that “[i]n light of the Chief Special Master’s fact ruling and medical
record evidence submitted in this case, respondent does not dispute that petitioner has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6. Respondent
further requests that I decide the issue of entitlement in this case based on the record as
it now stands. Id. at 7.
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-01143-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-14
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/10/2022) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 46 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1143V
UNPUBLISHED
CATHERINE JONES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 10, 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)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 6, 2019, Catherine Jones 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received
on October 31, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 19, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On November 10, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $42,500.00
for all damages. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner
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-01143-UNJ Document 46 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 5
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 $42,500.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 46 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
CATHERINE JONES,
Petitioner, No. 19-1143V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1
I. Procedural History
On August 6, 2019, Catherine Jones (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34, as amended. She alleges that, as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on October 31,
2016, she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). See
Petition. On September 18, 2022, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, electing not to
defend this SIRVA Table case. On September 19, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a
ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for a SIRVA Table
injury.
II. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
a lump sum of $42,500.00, for all damages. This amount represents all elements of
1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after
the Damages Decision is issued.

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 46 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 5
compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
III. Form of the Award
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 following: A lump sum payment of $42,500.00, in
the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award for
future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties
reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01143-UNJ Document 46 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Terrence K. Mangan, Jr.__
TERRENCE K. MANGAN, JR.
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Phone: (202) 532-5875
Email: terrence.mangan@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 10, 2022
3