VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01771
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01771
Petitioner: Kristi A. Baker
Filed: 2019-11-18
Decided: 2022-01-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-23
Condition: right shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 130750

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristi A. Baker filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered right shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 23, 2017. The respondent conceded that Ms. Baker satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table for a SIRVA claim, and entitlement was granted on April 12, 2021. The case proceeded to a damages decision based on a proffer. Sadly, Kristi A. Baker passed away on October 19, 2020, and her estate, represented by administrator Cariana M. Forbush, continued the claim. The parties stipulated to an award of $130,750.30, which included $107,500.00 for pain and suffering, $2,524.97 for past out-of-pocket expenses, $980.00 in estate costs, and $19,745.33 in past lost wages. The decision awarding damages was issued on January 19, 2022.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01771-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-11-10
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/09/2020) regarding 27 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-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1771V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTI A. BAKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 9, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Simina Vourlis, Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, Columbus, OH, for petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FACT RULING1
On November 18, 2019, Kristi A. Baker 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 right shoulder injuries related to
vaccination (“SIRVA”) pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, or caused in fact by an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 23, 2017. Petition at 1, 7. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that the flu vaccine Petitioner received on
November 23, 2017, was more likely than not administered in her right shoulder.
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-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 6
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. Baker filed her petition on November 18, 2019. On November 19, 2019,
Petitioner filed Exhibits 1-11 and a Statement of Completion (ECF Nos. 5-11). The case
went through the pre-assignment review process and was thereafter assigned to the SPU
on November 26, 2019 (ECF No. 13).
The initial status conference was held on March 2, 2020 (ECF No. 16). On March
24, 2020, Petitioner filed additional medical records as Exhibit 12 (ECF No. 17). On April
28, 2020, Ms. Baker filed a status report (ECF No. 18) and Statement of Completion (ECF
No. 19).
On May 15, 2020, Respondent filed a status report (ECF. No. 20) noting that he
had not identified missing medical records or medical issues beyond what is normally
addressed in the SPU. However, counsel identified an issue that may require additional
development or support: the record established that Petitioner received a flu vaccine on
November 23, 2017, but did not indicate which arm was the site of vaccine administration.
A telephonic status conference was held on June 4, 2020 to discuss how to resolve
the issue of the vaccination situs (ECF No. 21). Petitioner’s counsel stated that she
thought the record contained sufficient evidence to support her contention that she
received the vaccine in her right arm. Respondent’s counsel noted that an affidavit from
the person who administered the vaccine could be helpful. Petitioner agreed to look into
whether any additional evidence was available. Neither party objected to the possibility
of a ruling on the written record concerning the vaccination site after Petitioner filed either
additional evidence or a status report.
On August 6, 2020, Petitioner filed a status report stating that she did not intend to
file additional evidence concerning the site of vaccine administration (ECF No. 24).
Rather, she cited medical records relevant to the vaccination situs, and noted that her
affidavit provided further explanation. Petitioner reported that a letter was sent to the
nurse who administered the November 23, 2017 vaccine, but no response was received
and the letter was not returned undelivered. Attached to Petitioner’s August 6, 2020 status
report is a letter dated June 29, 2020 from Petitioner’s counsel to the nurse identified in
the status report requesting the nurse to respond concerning the vaccination site (ECF
No. 24 at 4). This issue is now ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her
right arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
2

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 6
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 Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special
3

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 6
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. Finding of Fact
Based upon a review of the entire record, I find that Petitioner’s November 23,
2017 flu vaccine was likely administered in her right arm, as she contends. I make this
finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical records, affidavits, and
additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base my finding on the following evidence:
• Exs. 1 at 1 and 3 at 615, 709 document that an intramuscular flu vaccine
was administered to Petitioner on the morning of November 23, 2017,
although they do not establish the situs of vaccine administration;
• Ex. 4 at 25, a record of a December 13, 2017 appointment with Nurse
Practitioner Tonnette Hoffman for right shoulder pain notes that Petitioner
reported that she “was being discharged from the hospital on Thanksgiving
day and was given a flu vaccine. She said the shot was given [too] high in
her right arm and has hurt ever since”;
• Ex. 5 at 1, a record of a December 19, 2017 appointment with orthopedist
Dr. Stanley Tao for right shoulder pain, noting “acute onset (11/23/17) pt
states started after receiving flu shot . . . pt state[s] flu shot was given
exceptionally high region of arm and did hurt worse than usual” and noting
an onset date of 11/23/17. This record also documents that Petitioner’s
dominant hand is her left hand. Id;
• Ex. 5 at 28, a Scott Orthopedic Center Injury form dated December 19, 2017
and signed by Petitioner reporting that the injury happened to her right
shoulder on November 23, 2017, at approximately 10 am and explaining
that she “[r]eceived flu shot too high on shoulder”;
• Ex. 6 at 2, a January 3, 2018 physical therapy initial evaluation noting a date
of onset/injury of November 23, 2017 and “a six week history of right
shoulder pain that she conveys began after a flu shot on 11/23/17”;
• Ex. 3 at 339, a record of a February 28, 2018 appointment with radiation
oncologist Dr. Sanjeev Sharma noting that Petitioner had “a little bit of
limited range of motion with her right arm; this has occurred after she had
her flu shot. She has been diagnosed with a frozen shoulder and she
attributes it more to the flu shot”;
• Ex. 3 at 340, a record of a May 7, 2018 appointment with Dr. Sharma noting
that Petitioner had undergone arthroscopic surgery of her right shoulder due
to a partial tear of a rotator cuff tendon secondary to a flu vaccine received
while she was hospitalized:
4

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 6
• Ex. 9 at 1, a January 11, 2019 letter from Sally B. Oxley of HPT Physical
Therapy Specialists, documenting a January 11, 2019 evaluation of
Petitioner’s functional abilities and noting that Petitioner reported right
shoulder pain associated with a November 23, 2017 flu vaccine. This record
also confirms that Petitioner “is left hand dominant.” Ex. 9 at 3;
The above-referenced evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s November 23,
2017 vaccination was likely administered in her right shoulder. In seeking care for her
right shoulder injury (beginning less than a month from the date of administration),
Petitioner reported that the vaccine had been administered in her right arm. Thereafter,
she consistently related her right shoulder injury to the November 23, 2017 flu vaccine.
Accordingly, there is record support for her contention about the situs of administration,
beyond her own allegations. In addition, Ms. Baker has provided a logical explanation for
why the vaccine would have been administered in her right arm, since her affidavit asserts
that she wanted it administered in her “non-dominant right arm.” Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 3-7. This
explanation is consistent with the medical records documenting that Petitioner is left hand
dominant. Thus, while there may not be a record from the date of administration that
conclusively establishes the issue in Petitioner’s favor, sufficient preponderant evidence
supports her favored conclusion.
I therefore find it more likely than not that the vaccination alleged as causal in this
case was administered to Petitioner in the right shoulder on November 23, 2017.
V. Scheduling Order
The issue of the vaccination site is the only issued Respondent’s counsel identified
as requiring additional development. Petitioner shall thus proceed with preparing a
demand, with supporting documentation, for Respondent’s consideration. This should
include lost wage documentation if Petitioner seeks damages for lost wages. I understand
that Respondent cannot provide a response to this demand until he has obtained formally
his client’s position.3 However, the parties should strive to be in a position to immediately
discuss damages once Respondent indicates he is amenable to consideration of
Petitioner’s demand after Respondent’s review is complete. In addition, it is sensible for
Petitioner to calculate her likely damages as quickly as possible in any case pending in
SPU.
Accordingly:
• Petitioner shall file, by no later than Wednesday, December 02, 2020, a status
report providing the following information:
3 If Respondent’s position on this case remains undetermined subsequent to the provision of a demand by
Petitioner’s counsel, I will nonetheless direct Respondent’s counsel to provide Respondent with a copy of
the demand and to file a Status Report confirming provision of Petitioner’s demand to Respondent.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 6
o Whether and when Petitioner provided a demand for damages with
supporting documentation to Respondent’s counsel;
o Whether there is a Medicaid lien in this case and, if so, when Petitioner
anticipates providing documentation of the lien to Respondent;
o Petitioner’s current treatment status and condition;
o Whether all updated medical records have been filed; and
o A list of each component of damages allegedly suffered by Petitioner.
• Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in
this case by Wednesday, January 06, 2021. At a minimum, the status report
shall indicate whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding
settlement or proffer, is opposed to negotiating at this time, or that the Secretary
has not yet determined his position. In the event Respondent wishes to file a Rule
4(c) report, he may propose a date for filing it, but shall indicate his position on
entering into negotiations regardless of whether he wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report.
Any questions about this order or about this case may be directed to OSM staff
attorney Eileen Vachher at (202) 357-6388 or Eileen_Vachher@cfc.uscourts.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01771-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-05-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/12/2021) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1771V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTI A. BAKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 12, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Simina Vourlis, Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, Columbus, OH, for petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On November 18, 2019, Kristi Baker 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 right shoulder injuries related to
vaccine administration as a result of a November 23, 2017 influenza vaccine. Petition at
1-7. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On April 8, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”).
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/21 Page 2 of 2
That is, petitioner has no relevant history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her right
shoulder; her pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an
intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the
vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain
her symptoms.” Id. at 5-6.
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-01771-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-19
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/20/2021) regarding 49 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/19/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1771V
UNPUBLISHED
CARIANA M. FORBUSH as Chief Special Master Corcoran
administrator for ESTATE OF KRISTI
A. BAKER, Filed: December 20, 2021
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Simina Vourlis, Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, Columbus, OH, for Petitioner.
Steven Santayana, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 18, 2019, this petition for compensation was filed under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that Kristi A. Baker suffered right shoulder injuries related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a November 23, 2017 influenza vaccine.
Petition at 1-7. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On April 12, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On December 20, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $130,750.30. Proffer
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-01771-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 5
at 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 $130,750.30 (comprised of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering,
$2,524.97 for past out-of-pocket expenses, $980.00 in estate costs, and $19,745.33
in past lost wages) 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.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-01771-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/19/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
CARIANA M. FORBUSH, as administrator )
of the estate of KRISTI A. BAKER, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-1771V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On November 18, 2019, Kristi A. Baker (“original 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 vaccine she received on November 23, 2017. Petition at 1. On April 8, 2021, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that
this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury,
and on April 12, 2021, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding original
petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 35; ECF No. 36. On June 1, 2021, the Chief
Special Master issued an order granting a motion for substitution of parties and to amend the
caption to substitute the original petitioner with the administrator of the original petitioner’s
estate. ECF No. 42; ECF No. 40. The motion explained that Cariana M. Forbush (“petitioner”),
1

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/19/22 Page 4 of 5
was appointed administrator of the original petitioner’s estate following her death on October 19,
2020. ECF No. 40 at 1.
Items of Compensation
Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $107,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
Past Out-of-Pocket Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past out-of-pocket expenses
related to the vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $2,524.97. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner agrees.
Estate Costs
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $980.00 in estate costs. See 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
Lost Wages
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $19,745.33 in past lost wages. See
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
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
2

Case 1:19-vv-01771-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/19/22 Page 5 of 5
the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $130,750.30, in the form of
a check payable to petitioner.
Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Cariana Forbush: $130,750.30
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
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Steven C. Santayana
STEVEN C. SANTAYANA
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 451-7675
Fax: (202) 616-4310
Email: steven.c.santayana@usdoj.gov
Date: December 20, 2021
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.
3