VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01807
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01807
Petitioner: Carl Johnson
Filed: 2019-11-26
Decided: 2023-05-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-24
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 37500

AI-assisted case summary:
Carl Johnson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 26, 2019, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination received on October 24, 2017. He claimed the effects of the injury lasted for more than six months. Respondent denied that the injury met the forty-eight-hour onset requirement and denied that the flu vaccine caused the alleged injury. Despite these contested positions, the parties filed a joint stipulation on May 16, 2023, agreeing to settle the case. The court adopted the stipulation, awarding Carl Johnson a lump sum of $37,500.00 as compensation for all damages available under the program. This amount represents a compromise of the parties' respective positions on liability and damages. The case proceeded as a Table claim, as SIRVA is a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table for the influenza vaccine.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01807-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-07
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/27/2022) regarding 38 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1807V
UNPUBLISHED
CARL JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 27, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Requirement Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1
On November 26, 2019, Carl Johnson 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 he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on October 24,
2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 2 of 7
Respondent has contested Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation, arguing
(among other things) that Petitioner did not suffer the residual effects of his injury for at
least six months. For the reasons discussed below, however, I find that Petitioner has
met the Act’s “severity requirement” (although this determination is not dispositive of the
overall claim).
I. Relevant Procedural History
On June 14, 2021 (about 19 months after the case was initiated), Respondent filed
a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to
compensation, for several reasons. ECF No. 29. One of Respondent’s contentions is that
Petitioner cannot establish “that he suffered the residual effects or complications of his
alleged shoulder injury for more than six months. Rule 4 Report at 5.3
Petitioner filed his Memorandum (“Memo.”) regarding the statutory six-month
requirement on December 9, 2021. ECF No. 35. Respondent filed his response
memorandum (“Resp.”) on January 10, 2022. ECF No. 36.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Factual History
Petitioner was 56 years old when he received a flu vaccine in his right arm on
October 24, 2017. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 2 at 1. Petitioner stated that he “immediately” felt “sharp,
stabbing pain” during the vaccination, which progressed during the day to “throbbing,
numbness, and cramping in his right shoulder.” Ex. 3 at ¶5. He “rested and limited the
use of his right arm, took ibuprofen” and thought that the symptoms would resolve on their
own. Id. at ¶7.
On November 20, 2017, now 27 days after his vaccination, Petitioner visited his
primary care physician (“PCP”), Dr. Kharel, complaining of pain and reduced range of
motion in his right arm. Ex. 4 at 1-6. Dr. Kharel diagnosed frozen shoulder, noting that it
was “unlikely related to the flu shot.” Id. at 6. Petitioner was prescribed Tylenol #3 and
referred to physical therapy. Id.
On November 29, 2017, 36 days after his vaccination, Petitioner presented for a
physical therapy evaluation. Ex. 5 at 2. On exam, Petitioner demonstrated decreased
range of motion, both active and passive, pain, and signs and symptoms of frozen
shoulder. Id. He was advised to continue physical therapy twice a week for a period of 12
3 Respondent further argues that Petitioner has not established that his pain occurred within 48 hours of his
vaccination, but that issue was not briefed and is not decided here. Rule 4(c) Report at 7.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 3 of 7
weeks. Id at 6. Mr. Johnson completed six more sessions of physical therapy through
March 2, 2018. Ex. 6 at 11.
On December 4, 2017, Petitioner reported to orthopedic physician’s assistant, Vinh
Kevin Dang, for evaluation of his right shoulder. Ex. 6 at 2. Petitioner rated his pain at
5/10, which worsened with reaching overhead, behind the back, and sleeping on his right
side. Id. His exam revealed reduced active and passive range of motion and positive
impingement signs. Id. at 3. PA Dang diagnosed adhesive capsulitis, prescribed
indomethacin, and scheduled Petitioner for a cortisone injection. Id. at 4. Petitioner
received the injection the following day. Ex. 6 at 11.
On February 1 and 8, 2018, Petitioner contacted PA Dang to schedule a follow-up
appointment and second cortisone injection. Ex. 6 at 12-13. Although an appointment
was initially scheduled for March 14, 2018, the appointment did not happen. Id. Petitioner
explained that he was “unable to go to the appointment because he could not continue to
afford the co-pays.” Ex. 11 at ¶8.
Other physical therapy sessions were scheduled, but Petitioner’s seventh and final
physical therapy appointment occurred on March 2, 2018, four months and six days after
his vaccination. Ex. 5 at 54. The progress note from that visit states that Petitioner
continued to have deficits in strength, restricted range of motion, particularly in internal
and external rotation, and pain at the end range of passive range of motion in all motions.
Id. at 54-55. Petitioner had completed only one of his physical therapy goals: being
independent with his home exercise program. Id. The physical therapist also noted that
Petitioner continued to have pain with movement, and that his range of motion was
improving, but not within functional limits. Id. at 53, 55. He recommended further physical
therapy as “medically necessary.” Id.
Petitioner has stated that as of this time, he stopped his physical therapy treatment
due to cost. Ex. 11 at ¶9. He nevertheless continued to experience “pain and discomfort
in his right shoulder” plus reduced range of motion, and “continued to do the home
exercise program that he as provided” for the next several months. Id. at ¶10-11. He
similarly continued to take ibuprofen for pain, rest and limit the use of his shoulder, and
use ice and heat for relief. Id. At some point during the summer of 2018, approximately
8-10 months after his vaccination, Petitioner states that he was unable to play golf due to
“immense” pain in his right shoulder. Id. at ¶13.
In December 2018, Petitioner had two medical appointments with Dr. Kharel. The
first, on December 6, 2018, focused on Petitioner’s high blood pressure. Ex. 4 at 64. The
record instructs Petitioner to “return to office for physical.” Id. at 66. There is no mention
of Petitioner’s shoulder pain. Mr. Johnson returned four days later, on December 10,
2018, for an annual physical. Ex. 4 at 44. The record of that visit does not mention
Petitioner’s shoulder pain, indicates normal range of motion in both shoulders, and
3

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 4 of 7
indicates that Petitioner refused a flu shot. Id. Petitioner’s blood pressure was taken in his
right arm at both visits. Ex. 4 at 47, 66.
Almost five months later, on May 13, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Kharel for a
follow-up appointment. Ex. 4 at 30. Petitioner now (again) reported right shoulder pain
and explained that he had tried “a few sessions” of physical therapy. Id. Dr. Kharel
diagnosed him with “chronic shoulder pain” and referred him back to physical therapy. Id.
at 33. There are no records of Petitioner receiving additional physical therapy.
There are no additional medical records reflecting treatment for Petitioner’s right
shoulder pain. Petitioner states that he continued to experience limitations in his right
shoulder through at least December 3, 2021, the date of his supplemental affidavit. See
Ex. 11. Petitioner avers that he has continued to favor his left arm over his right “whenever
possible,” requires assistance with tasks like yardwork and shoveling, and continues to
do his home exercise program. Id. at ¶17.
III. Authority
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. 17-1013V, 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).
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 & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
4

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 5 of 7
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).
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). 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).
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).
5

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 6 of 7
IV. Finding of Fact
In order to establish at least six months of residual effects, Petitioner must
demonstrate that his residual symptoms likely continued until at least April 24, 2018 --
assuming a Table-consistent onset (admittedly a disputed matter). The record establishes
at a minimum that Petitioner had continuous treatment for his injury through his final
physical therapy appointment on March 2, 2018 – four months and six days after his
vaccination. Respondent argues that Petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence
that his injury lasted beyond this date, because there was no mention of his shoulder pain
in his medical records between March 2, 2018 and May 13, 2019, despite two intervening
appointments. Resp. at 5. And Respondent maintains that Petitioner’s statements
regarding his ongoing symptoms “are not consistent with contemporaneous medical
records in which he did not report any shoulder pain or exhibit a limited range of motion.”
Id. at 6.
Although there is little “hard” record evidence regarding Petitioner’s symptoms
between March 2, 2018 and May 13, 2019, there are several items of evidence that
corroborate the contention that the claim meets the Act’s severity requirement. First.
Petitioner’s treatment history allows the inference of ongoing sequelae. At the time of his
last physical therapy treatment on March 2, 2018, Petitioner continued to demonstrate a
need for additional formal physical therapy. Ex. 5 at 53-54. The physical therapist noted
Petitioner’s pain, as well as deficits in Petitioner’s strength and range of motion. Id.
Petitioner was not formally discharged from physical therapy and had not met the majority
of his goals, but instead ceased it voluntarily for economic reasons alone. Id. at 55; Ex.
11 at ¶9. Indeed, Petitioner had also cancelled a scheduled orthopedist appointment on
March 14, 2018 due to cost concerns. Ex. 6 at 12-13; Id. at ¶8.
Second, witness statements support a severity finding favorable to the Petitioner.
Both Petitioner and his wife state that he continued to experience pain and reduced range
of motion after he stopped treatment for his injury on March 2, 2018. Ex. 11 at ¶10; Ex.
12 at ¶6. He self-treated his symptoms during this period with ibuprofen, ice/heat, rest,
and the home exercise program that he was given in physical therapy. Ex. 11 at ¶12; Ex.
12 at ¶6. The fact that a petitioner did not receive medical treatment for a solid/continuous
six-month period does not necessarily mean that there are no remaining residual effects
of the injury. See Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL
978825 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. January 23, 2019).4 And more broadly, Petitioner’s
4 This case is factually similar to Morine, in which the six-month requirement was deemed satisfied where
the petitioner had treatment records through four months and ten days after vaccination, did not report
shoulder pain at intervening visits for a period of approximately two years, but gave a credible explanation
for why she did not report shoulder pain at those visits. Morine, 2019 WL 978825 at *4.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/07/22 Page 7 of 7
statements in his affidavits do not contradict the records themselves, but provide
additional context of the time and circumstances. See Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1384.
Respondent argues that the two records from Petitioner’s appointments with his
PCP in December 2018 indicate that Petitioner’s injury had resolved. Resp. at 5.
Respondent highlights the fact that Petitioner was no longer taking the prescription
medications he was prescribed for his shoulder pain and had his blood pressure taken in
his right arm, without any mention of shoulder pain at that time. Id. at 6-7. But Petitioner
explained that he did not mention his shoulder pain at the first visit because it was a visit
focused solely on his blood pressure. Ex. 11 at ¶15. Petitioner believes he did mention
his shoulder symptoms at the second visit when he refused an annual flu vaccination. Id.
at 16. Petitioner mentioned his right shoulder pain to his PCP again in May 2019 at his
annual physical, when he was referred back to physical therapy. Ex. 4 at 30-33. And in
any event, even if it were true that Petitioner’s SIRVA had fully resolved by the end of
2018, this would not prohibit a finding of proper severity based on an onset in October of
the prior year.
Thus, after consideration of the entire record, I find that the evidence
preponderates in Petitioner’s favor on this issue. This does not, unfortunately, decide this
matter, since other issues (like onset) remain in dispute. I will provide the parties a brief
additional period of time to attempt settlement – but will seek to fully decide the Table
claim thereafter if the present ruling does not prove helpful in getting the case informally
resolved.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole, Petitioner has established that he suffered the
residual effects of his vaccine-related injury for at least six months as required by the
Vaccine Act.
The parties are encouraged to consider an informal resolution of this claim.
Accordingly, by no later than Tuesday, November 29, 2022, Petitioner shall file a
status report updating the court on the parties’ settlement discussions. I shall set
a final schedule for the claim’s disposition if the parties represent that they cannot
settle the matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01807-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-16
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/16/2023) regarding 44 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1807V
UNPUBLISHED
CARL JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 16, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On November 26, 2019, Carl Johnson 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccination he received on October
24, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at May 16, 2023, ¶¶2, 4. Petitioner further alleges
that he suffered the effects of his injury for more than six months. Petition at ¶21;
Stipulation at ¶4. Respondent denies “that Petitioner satisfied the forty-eight hour onset
requirement and further denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged right
shoulder injury, any other injury, or his current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on May 16, 2023, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $37,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 7
3ln tbe Wniteb ~tates Qtourt of jfe beraI QI:Iaims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
CARL JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
Case No. J9 -J8 07V (ECF)
v.
CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER
CORCORAN
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVlCES,
Respondent.
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
l. Carl Johnson, petitioner, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-l0 to -34 (the "Vaccine
Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt
of the influenza ("flu") vaccine, which is a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the
"Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.J(a).
2. Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 24,2017.
3. The vaccination was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that he sustained a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration ("SJRVA") within the Table time period after receiving the flu vaccine, and
alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil
action for damages on his behalf as a result of his alleged injuries.

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner satisfied tbe forty-eight hour onset requirement
and further denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged right shoulder injury, any other
injury, or his current condition.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that
the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent
with the tenns of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive
compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2l(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$37,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment in this case, and after petitioner
has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2l(a)(l), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings
before the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding
upon this petition.
10. Petitioner and his attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 5 of 7
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation and any amounts
awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l S(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any
award for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money
provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as
contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l S(a) and (d), and subject to the
conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(g) and (h).
13. In return for th·e payments described·i n paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner;·;n his
individual capacity, and on behalf of his heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 24, 2017, as
alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about
November 26, 2019, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. I 9-1807V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be
voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
3

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 6 of 7
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the
te1ms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity
with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
I 6. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability
and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended,
except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of
the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly
stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree' and understand 1hat the award described in
this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
I 7. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged right
shoulder injury or any other injury or his current condition.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to
petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4

Case 1:19-vv-01807-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/16/23 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
.~.
~
CARLJ~
! ~
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORlED REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
PETITIONER,
~ - { / ~ .. ~A,1~¼4--..P~
BRUCE W. SLANE HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Counsel for Petitioner Deputy Director
The Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C. Torts Branch, Civil Division
188 East Post Road, Suite 205 U.S. Department of Justice
White Plains, NY I 060 I P.O. Box 146·
bruce@slane-law.com Benjamin Franklin Station
(914) 269-2010 Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTONEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
George R. Grimes
DigitallyslgnedbyGeorgeR
Grlmes•S14
-$ 14
Date: 2023.0S.02 1S :38:S1 -04'00'
CDR GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH MARK K. HELLJE
Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney
Compensation Programs Torts Branch, Civil Division
Health Systems Bureau U.S. Department of Justice
Health Resources and P.O. Box 146
Services Administration Benjamin Franklin Station
U.S. Department of Health and Washington, DC 20044-0146
Human Services mark.hellie@usdoj.gov
5600 Fishers Lane, 08N 146B (202) 616-4208
Rockville, MD 20857
f,-
~ 2d 2.J
Dated: - /
5