VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01447
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01447
Petitioner: Elaine Dimeo
Filed: 2019-09-19
Decided: 2021-11-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-12
Condition: left shoulder injuries
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 56258

AI-assisted case summary:
Elaine Dimeo received an influenza vaccine in her left shoulder on September 12, 2018. Within three days, she experienced left shoulder pain, which she had also experienced the previous year after a flu shot. Her symptoms included tenderness, reduced range of motion, and pain, particularly in cold or rainy weather, and weakness. She was diagnosed with bursitis and adhesive capsulitis, and received treatment including steroid injections, medication, and physical therapy. The case proceeded as a Table claim for Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The Chief Special Master found that Ms. Dimeo's residual symptoms, including pain and weakness, persisted for at least six months post-vaccination, meeting the program's severity requirement. Consequently, she was found entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision awarded her $56,258.58, comprising $55,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,258.58 for unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01447-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-04
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/05/2021) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1447V
UNPUBLISHED
Chief Special Master Corcoran
ELAINE DIMEO,
Petitioner, Dated: October 5, 2021
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); Six
HUMAN SERVICES, Month Residual Effects or Sequelae;
Influenza Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 19, 2019, Elaine Dimeo 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 left shoulder injuries caused by an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 12, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record that she has satisfied the
requirements of Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Vaccine Act (ECF No. 34). For the reasons
discussed below, I find that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged vaccine-
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-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 6
related injury for more than six months after vaccination, as required by the Vaccine Act.
Further, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for a left SIRVA.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On February 8, 2021, Respondent filed a status report stating that he had reviewed
the records in this case and was willing to engage in settlement discussions. ECF No. 29.
Respondent also requested a deadline be set for his Rule 4(c) Report. That report was
filed on April 16, 2021, and argued that the records in this case did not demonstrate
entitlement because Petitioner could not establish that her injury lasted for more than six
months after her vaccination. ECF No. 32, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”) at
1, 6-7. I subsequently ordered Petitioner to file a motion for a ruling on the record on April
23, 2021. ECF No. 33.
Petitioner filed her motion on May 25, 2021. ECF No. 34, Petitioner’s Motion for a
Ruling on the Record. Respondent filed an opposition on June 25, 2021. ECF No. 35,
Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Response”).
Petitioner did not file a reply. This issue is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether the residual effects or complications of Petitioner’s injury
continued for more than six months. Vaccine Act § 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
III. Factual Summary
On September 12, 2018, Ms. Dimeo received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder. Ex.
1 at 6. The records filed in this case establish that prior to the vaccine Petitioner had left
shoulder pain following a flu shot in 2017, but the issue resolved following a steroid
injection received on October 19, 2017. Ex. 5 at 193-97; Ex. 2 at 18.
Three days after her vaccination, Petitioner presented to CaroMont Health
Emergency Department complaining of left shoulder pain since a flu shot three days prior
and was treated by Dr. Ayana Wilson. Ex. 2 at 17-18, 58, 132. Upon examination,
Petitioner had a normal range of motion but reported tenderness in her left trapezius
muscle. Id. at 18. Petitioner further noted that “she experienced similar symptoms last
year when she received the flu shot and these symptoms only improved after she received
a steroid shot.” Id. at 39. Dr. Wilson noted that she believed muscle spasms may have
contributed to her pain. Id. at 18. Petitioner received a steroid shot that day and was
prescribed Flexeril and Motrin. Id. at 49-50.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 6
Petitioner again complained of shoulder pain on September 17, 2018, and
presented to Kathryn Suzanne Claffee, P.A., at East Ridge Family Medicine. Ex. 3 at 12-
13. Petitioner exhibited tenderness in her left trapezius muscle, received refills of her
medications, prednisone, and was told to follow up in one week. Id. at 13. Petitioner
returned to East Ridge Family Medicine on September 24, 2018, complaining of shoulder
pain and reduced range of motion. Id. at 64. Petitioner was prescribed a second round of
prednisone and referred to an orthopedic specialist. Id. at 64.
Petitioner was seen by Jeffrey Dabkowski PA at OrthoCarolina on September 25,
2018. Ex. 4 at 21. Mr. Dabkowski noted that he was “concerned that there is a now bursitis
like pattern to her shoulder” and that it may progress towards adhesive capsulitis. Id. at
22. Petitioner exhibited restricted range of motion but full strength upon examination. Id.
at 21. X-rays revealed degenerative changes in the AC joint and large subacromial spurs.
Id.
Petitioner reported to PA Dabkowski on October 11, 2018 that her pain had
improved, but was still present. Ex. 4 at 18-20. She was diagnosed with bursitis and
adhesive capsulitis, received a cortisone injection, and was referred to physical therapy.
Id. at 18-19.
Petitioner returned to Eastridge Family Medicine with ongoing complaints of left
shoulder pain on October 15, 2018. Ex. 3 at 90-91. She reported that, following a
subacromial injection the week before, she had a great deal of improvement with pain
control and range of motion, but still had pain and trouble with some movements. Id. at
91. Less than two weeks later, on October 26, 2018, Petitioner presented for an initial
physical therapy evaluation, and attended three sessions through February 19, 2019. Ex.
4 at 24-29.
Petitioner returned to OrthoCarolina on January 3, 2019. Ex. 4 at 12-13. She
reported continued left shoulder pain but also noted that her range of motion was greatly
improved, although her strength had yet to return. Id. at 12. PA Dubkowski stated that her
capsulitis was resolved at that point, but her rotator cuff was still very weak. Id.
Petitioner next saw PA Dabkowski on March 18, 2019. Ex. 4 at 9-10. Upon
examination, Petitioner exhibited full strength and full range of motion. However,
Petitioner stated that she still felt pain “if it is less than 30 degrees outside or if it is raining.”
She also felt that her shoulder was still weak. PA Dabkowski stated that the aching
sensation “is likely a remnant of the inflammation” and “may bet better in time….” Id. at
10. Further, PA Dabkowski advised Petitioner to continue working to strengthen her
shoulder. Id. Petitioner stated that she would continue doing at-home exercises. Id.
3

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 4 of 6
IV. Authority
The purpose of the Vaccine Act is to award “vaccine-injured persons quickly,
easily, and with certainty and generosity.” Weddel v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
100 F. 3d 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 99-908, at 3 (1986)). The Act
was meant to remedy the problem that “for the relatively few who are injured by vaccines
– through no fault of their own – the opportunities for redress and restitution [were] limited,
time consuming, expensive, and often unanswered.” Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 99-908,
at 6 (1986)). As a result, the Program places some emphasis on speed and efficiency,
especially in close cases.
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.
§ 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.” Curcuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, “[i]t must [also] be
recognized that the absence of a reference to a condition or circumstance is much less
significant than a reference which negates the existence of the condition or circumstance.
Since medical records typically record only a fraction of all that occurs, the fact that
reference to an event is omitted from the medical records may not be very significant.”
Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (Fed. Cl. 1991), aff’d, 968
F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Kirby v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d
1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (rejecting as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions).
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act § 11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§ 13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does
not necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). In another
SPU case, where a Petitioner’s last treatment was five months and nine days after a
vaccine, the petitioner was found to meet the six month requirement. Schafer v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0593V, 2019 WL 5849524 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 28,
4

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 5 of 6
2019). In that case, the special master noted that it was unlikely “that petitioner’s shoulder
symptoms would have resolved within 22 days.” Id. at *7.
V. Finding of Fact
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner received a flu vaccine on September
12, 2018, in her left deltoid. The parties have not raised any dispute concerning the timing
of onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain, which the record establishes was immediate.
Ex. 2 at 17-18.3 This leaves only the issue of severity. In order for Petitioner to establish
more than six months of residual effects, she must demonstrate that her residual
symptoms continued until at least March 12, 2019.
The parties do not dispute that Petitioner was seen by PA Dabkowski at Ortho
Carolina on March 18, 2019, approximately six months and one week after her
vaccination and the onset of her symptoms. Ex. 4 at 9-11. At that time, she reported that
her range of motion was back to normal, but that she still felt pain in certain situations,
such as when it was cold or raining. Id. Further, Petitioner also stated that her shoulder
was still weak, and that she “has a little bit of strength left to work on.” Id. Additionally, PA
Dabkowski noted that Petitioner had achieved significant results, but that the aching
sensation she described was likely a remnant of the inflammation. Id. at 9-10.
Here I find that the severity requirement has been met in Petitioner’s favor. While
it is true that Petitioner appears to have recovered fairly quickly after her injury (when
compared with some other Program cases), she still had some pain, discomfort, and
weakness at certain times as of March 18, 2019. While this date just barely meets the six-
month severity requirement, it still crosses the temporal line. Indeed, during Petitioner’s
last appointment with PA Dabkowski, he noted that her pain “may get a little bit better in
time but also advised her that sometimes the symptoms can stay….” Ex. 4 at 9. Further,
he advised Petitioner to “continue working on her strengthening.” Id. Thus, contemporary
treater comments also underscore the degree to which Petitioner’s symptoms were not
believed to have disappeared at the time (even if they did not long thereafter).
VI. Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence that
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury for at least six months.
3 Respondent concedes that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a SIRVA, and only contends that Petitioner
“has not established that her injury lasted for more than six months after vaccination….” Response at 1.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 43 Filed 11/04/21 Page 6 of 6
Since Respondent challenges no other elements of Petitioner’s claim, and I find they are
also met,4 on 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
4 The other elements of Petitioner’s SIRVA claim include that her pain began within 48 hours of her
vaccination, that she had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to
her vaccination and that no other condition or abnormality is present that would explain Petitioner’s
symptoms. C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) and (iv). Respondent also does not dispute that the vaccination was
administered within the United States, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil
action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01447-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-22
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/14/2021) regarding 39 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1447V
UNPUBLISHED
ELAINE DIMEO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 14, 2021
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)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 19, 2019, Elaine Dimeo 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 caused by an influenza vaccine administered on September 12, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On October 5, 2021, I issued a Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Ruling on
Entitlement. ECF No. 36. The decision found that Petitioner suffered the residual effects
of her injury for at least six months and that she was entitled to compensation. On October
12, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating
Petitioner should be awarded $56,258.58 comprised of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering,
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-01447-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 5
and $1,258.58 for unriembursable expenses). Proffer at 2.3 In the Proffer, Respondent
represented 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 $56,258.58 (comprised of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering, and
$1,258.58 for unriembursable 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 the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Respondent stated that he had no objection to the amount of the proffered award and waives his right to
seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserved his right to seek review of the
October 5, 2021, entitlement decision.
4 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-01447-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
ELAINE DIMEO,
)
)
Petitioner,
) No. 19-1447V
v.
) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
)
SERVICES,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On September 19, 2019, Elaine Dimeo (“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
flu vaccine on September 12, 2018. Petition at 1. On April 16, 2021, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report, recommending that this
case be dismissed because petitioner’s SIRVA symptomatology did not meet the Act’s six-month
sequelae requirement. Rule 4(c) Report at 4-5 (ECF No. 32). On October 5, 2021, Chief Special
Master Corcoran issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Ruling on Entitlement,
finding that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury for at least six
months and ruling that she was entitled to compensation for her SIRVA.1 See Ruling on
Entitlement (ECF No. 36).
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the chief special master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 5
I. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4).
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 $1,258.58. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B).
The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $56,258.58, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Elaine Dimeo: $56,258.58
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the chief special
master’s October 5, 2021, entitlement decision.
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01447-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Wei Kit (Ricky) Tai
WEI KIT (RICKY) TAI
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Direct dial: (202) 598-7705
Wei.Tai@usdoj.gov
Dated: October 12, 2021
3