VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01970
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01970
Petitioner: Megan Swanzer
Filed: 2019-12-30
Decided: 2022-08-31
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-03-04
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccination (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 51400

AI-assisted case summary:
Megan Swanzer filed a petition on December 30, 2019, alleging that a Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine administered on March 4, 2018, caused a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). At the time of vaccination, Ms. Swanzer was 47 years old. She reported experiencing right arm pain, numbness, and limited range of motion within six hours of receiving the vaccine. Her condition was assessed as adhesive capsulitis by her primary care provider, Dr. Bindu Sehgal, who referred her to Dr. Reuben Gobezie. Records indicate that on March 21, 2018, Dr. Gobezie administered two ultrasound-guided steroid injections to her right shoulder, and X-ray images of her right shoulder were taken. However, comprehensive medical records from this March 21, 2018, encounter were not obtained, and efforts to subpoena records from Dr. Gobezie's prior practice were unsuccessful. Ms. Swanzer did not have further medical encounters for her shoulder for approximately fifteen months. On May 23, 2019, she presented again to Dr. Gobezie with right shoulder and biceps pain, described as intermittent aching and sharp pain. Dr. Gobezie noted a previous injection in March for frozen shoulder that provided temporary relief, and he administered further steroid injections to her right shoulder's bicipital tendon and acromioclavicular joint, assessing her with tendinitis and osteoarthritis. She then attended physical therapy starting in June 2020, reporting that her full functional movement had never returned since the vaccination and a subsequent steroid injection. The physical therapist noted significant functional limitation consistent with the "thawing" phase of adhesive capsulitis. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argued that Ms. Swanzer failed to show that the shoulder complaints treated in March 2018 were related to those in May 2019, citing the gap in treatment. However, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Ms. Swanzer had provided sufficient evidence of a SIRVA injury and that the residual effects persisted for more than six months. The Special Master determined that Ms. Swanzer met all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act, including that the shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, was limited to the shoulder, and there was no history of prior shoulder pathology or alternative cause. On February 3, 2022, entitlement was granted. Following this, the parties stipulated to damages. On August 31, 2022, Megan Swanzer was awarded $51,400.91, consisting of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,400.91 for past unreimbursable expenses, paid as a lump sum check.

Theory of causation field:
Megan Swanzer, age 47, received a Tdap vaccine on March 4, 2018, and alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. She reported symptom onset within six hours of vaccination, including right arm pain, numbness, and limited range of motion, diagnosed as adhesive capsulitis. Treatment included steroid injections on March 21, 2018, and May 23, 2019. Despite a significant gap in treatment between March 2018 and May 2019, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found sufficient evidence that the injury's residual effects persisted for more than six months, satisfying the statutory severity requirement. The Special Master found that the injury met all Table requirements for SIRVA, including onset within 48 hours, localized to the shoulder, and no alternative cause. Entitlement was granted on February 3, 2022. Damages were stipulated, and on August 31, 2022, Ms. Swanzer was awarded $51,400.91 ($50,000 for pain and suffering, $1,400.91 for past unreimbursable expenses). Petitioner was represented by Bobbie L. Flynt of Crandall & Pera Law, LLC, and Respondent was represented by Jennifer Leigh Reynaud of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not detail specific medical experts or a detailed mechanism of injury beyond the general understanding of SIRVA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01970-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-09
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/03/2022) regarding 46 Ruling on Entitlement, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1970V
UNPUBLISHED
MEGAN SWANZER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 3, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Finding of
Fact; Statutory Severity
Respondent. Requirement; Six Months’ Sequelae;
Ruling on Entitlement; Tetanus-
Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis
(Tdap); Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).
Bobbie L. Flynt, Crandall & Pera Law, LLC, Chagrin Falls, OH, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 30, 2019, Megan Swanzer 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 as a result of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on March 4, 2018, she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccination (“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”).
1 Because this unpublished opinion 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 opinion 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-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 9
Petition (ECF No. 1) at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner most likely suffered the
residual effects of her alleged SIRVA for more than six months, and that she is otherwise
entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
The petition was initially supported by some documentation, including of one
encounter with an orthopedist, Reuben Gobezie, M.D. at the Cleveland Shoulder Institute
in 2019. Ex. 2. Petitioner also recalled an earlier encounter with Dr. Gobezie on March
21, 2018 – close in time to the vaccination deemed causal - but neither Dr. Gobezie nor
the Cleveland Shoulder Institute possessed records from Dr. Gobezie’s prior practice
from that time. Ex. 1; ECF Nos. 13, 17. Petitioner was unsuccessful in serving an
authorized subpoena onto the prior practice’s address. See Status Report filed June 1,
2020 (ECF No. 23) (including FedEx tracking information). Thus, she offered other non-
medical evidence to corroborate the March 21, 2018 encounter. Exs. 8-9, 11-12.
During a July 21, 2020, status conference, however, I observed that Petitioner
could likely establish the statutory severity requirement despite the missing records and
the acknowledged gap in treatment between March 2018 and May 2019. ECF No. 28.3 I
therefore proposed the parties consider settlement. To that end, Petitioner conveyed a
demand to Respondent on September 11, 2020, but further settlement discussions did
not occur. ECF Nos. 32, 34-36.
Almost a year later, on June 22, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report
opposing compensation, arguing that six-months of post-injury severity could not be
established because “Petitioner has failed to show that the right shoulder complaints she
was treated for in March 2018 were related to the complaints she made well over a year
later in May 2019.” Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 38) at 5. On October 13, 2021, Petitioner
filed a brief maintaining that her injury had lasted for more than six months. Brief (ECF
No. 41).4 On November 19, 2021, Respondent filed his Response (ECF No. 44). On
December 7, 2021, Petitioner filed her Reply (ECF No. 45). The matter is now ripe for
adjudication.
3 This gap in treatment was first noted by the assigned staff attorney, and acknowledged by Petitioner,
during the initial status conference on February 6, 2020. See ECF No. 12. Afterwards, Petitioner filed
supplemental affidavits addressing the issue on April 1, 2020, and July 14, 2020. Exs. 6, 10.
4 On the same date, Petitioner filed her fourth and final affidavit. Ex. 14.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 9
II. Issue
The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner has established that her alleged SIRVA
was sufficiently severe to be eligible for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner
specifically has the burden of establishing that she suffered “residual effects” of that injury
for more than six months after her vaccination. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).5
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “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. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). 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 & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has 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
5 Petitioner does not allege, nor would the evidence support, either alternative for establishing the severity
requirement: that the alleged injury resulted in death or “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.”
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(ii), (iii).
3

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 9
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 v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (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 fact 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).
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.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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. Finding of Fact
I make the following findings upon a complete review of the record, including all
medical records and affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, and the parties’ briefing:
• Upon receiving the subject Tdap vaccine, Megan Swanzer was forty-seven
(47) years old. In the three years prior to vaccination, she consulted
periodically with her primary care provider Bindu Sehgal, M.D., but
Petitioner’s medical history is non-contributory to the assessment of this
claim. Ex. 4 at 5-32, 35-89.
4

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 5 of 9
• On March 4, 2018, a pharmacy employee administered the subject Tdap
vaccine in or around Petitioner’s right deltoid muscle. Ex. 7 at 2, 4.
• Nine days post-vaccination, on March 13, 2018, Petitioner presented to Dr.
Sehgal to address right arm pain, numbness, and limited range of motion
which had begun “within 6 hours” after the Tdap vaccination. Dr. Sehgal
assessed Petitioner with adhesive capsulitis, for which she recommended
ice, heat, home exercises, and a referral to a Dr. Gobezie for further
evaluation and treatment. Ex. 4 at 33-34.
• Northshore Healthcare has billed Petitioner for a March 21, 2018, new
patient appointment with Reuben Gobezie, M.D.; X-ray imaging of an
unspecified shoulder; and two ultrasound-guided injections of the steroid
triamcinolone acetonide to an unspecified “joint/bursa” and “tendon
sheath/ligament.” Ex. 9 at 1.
• Petitioner has obtained the March 21, 2018, X-ray images which are of her
right shoulder. Ex. 11.
• Also on March 21, 2018, Petitioner took cell phone screen shots of the
Northshore Healthcare practice location, the aforementioned X-ray images,
and patient information about steroid injections. Ex. 9.
• Petitioner’s best efforts were not successful in obtaining any additional
medical records from the March 21st encounter.6 However, there is sufficient
contemporaneous evidence – and little to none to the contrary – to accept
that Dr. Gobezie did in fact examine and administer the two steroid
injections to Petitioner’s right shoulder on that date, as alleged.7
6 Dr. Gobezie and his new practice were in possession of the X-ray images, but no medical records from
that date. Petitioner’s subpoena onto the prior practice was returned as undeliverable. Moreover, it appears
that the prior practice is no longer in operation. Ex. 12 (July 2020 search for Northshore Healthcare in the
Ohio Secretary of State’s business name database, which yielded no results).
7 Despite Respondent’s argument that “it is unclear whether [Dr. Gobezie] examined Petitioner in March
2018,” citing the lack of comprehensive records and suggesting there may have been an undisclosed
interim visit in March 2019. Response at 4.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 6 of 9
• Petitioner did not have any further medical encounters with Dr. Gobezie or
any other provider, for either her right shoulder or any other complaints,
over the next fifteen (15) months.8
• On May 23, 2019, Petitioner presented to Dr. Gobezie, who was then
affiliated with the Cleveland Shoulder Institute, to address her “struggl[e]”
with right shoulder and biceps pain. Ex. 2 at 1. Dr. Gobezie recorded that
Petitioner “previously was given an injection in March for frozen shoulder,
which provided temporary relief.9 Her shoulder aches intermittently and she
[has] a sharp pain across the top of her shoulder. She takes ibuprofen as
needed.” Id. On physical exam, Dr. Gobezie observed tenderness at the
biceps tendon and acromioclavicular (“AC”) joints; positive impingement
signs; and decreased range of motion on both active and passive flexion.
Id. at 2. Dr. Gobezie assessed Petitioner with tendinitis and osteoarthritis,
for which he administered ultrasound-guided injections of the steroid
triamcinolone acetonide to her right shoulder bicipital tendon and right
acromioclavicular joint. Id. at 2-3. Dr. Gobezie discussed unspecified
treatment options and instructed Petitioner to follow up as needed. Id. at 3.
• The next medical record in evidence is from June 25, 2020, when Petitioner
presented to Let’s Get Physical Therapy (“PT”) to address a history of right
shoulder pain which had been present since a tetanus shot “2.5 years ago.”
Ex. 13 at 3. Petitioner recounted that after an orthopedist first administered
a cortisone injection, she was able to get “a little movement.” Id. Afterwards,
she did “a few exercises on her own,” then waiting about a year before going
back for a second steroid injection in May 2019. Id. Petitioner reported that
her “full functional movement has never returned,” but also that “about a
month” before the PT presentation, she had developed “intense pain in the
superior and later aspects of the shoulder.” Id.
• The initial PT record also provides that an X-ray 2.5 years earlier was
negative, and that Petitioner’s finances were a complicating factor in
addressing her injury. Ex. 13 at 3 (elaborating that “pt is self-pay”).
8 See Ex. 4 at 1 (July 9, 2019, request for “entire chart” and resulting primary care records); Petitioner’s
Status Report filed March 31, 2020 (ECF No. 13) (confirming that there are no outstanding medical records
dating from March 21, 2018, through May 23, 2019).
9 Respondent suggests that because the May 2019 record does not address the Tdap vaccine and
references “March” without specifying the year, that there may an “interim visit to Dr. Gobezie in March
2019.” Response at 4 (emphasis added). However, Petitioner has repeatedly denied any such visit and I
do not see any other evidence that would support that prospect.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 7 of 9
• During the initial PT encounter, the therapist documented right shoulder
instability, painful and limited range of motion, slight weakness (at 4/5), a
positive impingement sign, and generalized tenderness. Ex. 13 at 3-4. The
therapist summarized that Petitioner had “significant functional limitation” in
her dominant right shoulder, and that the presentation was “consistent with
the ‘thawing’ phase of adhesive capsulitis. Id. at 5.
• Petitioner made significant progress after six PT encounters. On July 28,
2020, she self-discharged from formal PT with the plan to continue her
home exercise program (“HEP”). Ex. 13 at 30-31.
• Petitioner has submitted four affidavits, in which she maintains that her
shoulder injury was continuous and sufficiently severe to be considered
under the Vaccine Program. Exs. 1, 6, 10, 14.
• In her second affidavit (dated March 31, 2020), Petitioner recalls that on
March 21, 2018, Dr. Gobezie administered the first cortisone injections to
her right shoulder and told her that only one more round would be possible.
Ex. 6 at ¶ 5. Petitioner recalls waiting “as long as she could between
injections because [she] was afraid of getting the second one too soon and
then having it not work.” Id. In the interim, she self-treated her shoulder with
heat, ice, Motrin, and a home exercise program. Id. at ¶ 6.
• Petitioner recalls that after the May 23, 2019, follow-up appointment with
Dr. Gobezie, she again tried to manage her persistent shoulder pain. Ex. 6
at ¶ 8. She delayed seeking physical therapy while she assisted with her
father-in-law, who passed away in late 2019 or early 2020. Id. at ¶ 12. She
further delayed physical therapy during the initial COVID-19 pandemic
restrictions. Id. at ¶ 1.
• Petitioner emphasizes that she did not suffer any injury to her right shoulder
or arm either before the subject vaccination or between the recorded
medical encounters. She maintains that all treatment she received in 2018,
2019, and 2020 was directly related to and caused by the vaccination. Ex.
14 at ¶¶ 10-12.
Respondent asserts that there is not preponderant evidence to show that
Petitioner’s shoulder injury in March 2018 led to the sequelae observed in May 2019.
Response at 5. Certainly, there is a substantial treatment gap in this case, which
7

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 8 of 9
reasonably allows for the possibility that other intervening issues or factors could be
causal of symptoms experienced in the interim.
At the same time, however, the contemporaneous treatment records from the
period close-in-time to vaccination support the conclusion that Petitioner did experience
a SIRVA injury consistent with other aspects of the Table claim’s requirements. Thus, and
while I recognize that there is limited available documentation of Dr. Gobezie’s first
consult, Respondent gives insufficient consideration to the primary care records created
just eight days earlier. Specifically, on March 13, 2018, Dr. Sehgal recorded her objective
findings of right shoulder pain and limited range of motion, which she assessed as
adhesive capsulitis. Dr. Gobezie’s objective findings and assessment in May 2019 – and
moreover, the PT assessment in summer 2020 – were consistent. And Respondent has
not identified, nor do I see support, for any other inciting event or new injury.
As I have previously noted in other cases – and at the July 2020 status conference
here – the limited medical records and admitted gaps in treatment are relevant to the
extent of damages Petitioner may reasonably claim. Certainly Petitioner should not
expect a significant pain and suffering award in this case, having lived with her injury for
fifteen months without treatment. Regardless, there is preponderant evidence that
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury – specifically, mild to moderate
pain and reduced range of motion - for more than six months after vaccination.
V. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
In light of the lack of other objections and my own review of the record, I find that
Petitioner has established the other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. Specifically,
the record does not reflect a history of prior right shoulder pathology that would explain
Petitioner’s post-vaccination injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(3)(10)(i). There is no evidence
of any other condition or abnormality that represents an alternative cause. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(3)(10)(iii). The shoulder pain began within forty-eight (48) hours after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(3)(10)(ii). The pain and reduced range of motion
were limited to the shoulder. C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(3)(10)(iv). The contemporaneous vaccine
administration record reflects the site of administration as the right deltoid. Ex. 7 at 2, 4;
Sections 11(c)(1)(A) and (B)(i). Petitioner has not pursued a civil action or other
compensation. Ex. 1 at ¶ 12; Section 11(c)(1)(E). Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all
requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
8

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 47 Filed 03/09/22 Page 9 of 9
VI. Conclusion and Damages Order
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. Thus, this case is now in the damages phase.10
By no later than Monday, March 21, 2022, Petitioner shall file a status report
updating me on the parties’ progress towards informally resolving damages. The
status report shall indicate the date by which Respondent responded to
Petitioner’s September 11, 2020, demand. If Respondent has not yet responded,
the parties shall confer, and Petitioner shall report the date by which Respondent
expects to respond.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 The parties are reminded that in Vaccine Act cases, damages issues are typically resolved
collaboratively. Therefore, the parties should begin actively discussing the appropriate amount of
compensation in this case. In many cases, damages can be resolved by Petitioners communicating a
demand to Respondent, who may agree to the demand or may make a counter-offer.
The parties shall not retain a medical expert, life care planner, or other expert without consulting with
each other and the Chief Special Master. If counsel retains an expert without so consulting in advance,
reimbursement of those costs may be affected.
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01970-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-31
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/25/2022) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 62 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1970V
UNPUBLISHED
MEGAN SWANZER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 25, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Damages Decision based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Bobbie L. Flynt, Crandall & Pera Law, LLC, Chagrin Falls, OH, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On December 30, 2019, Megan Swanzer 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 as a result of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on March 4, 2018, she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccination (“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”).
Petition (ECF No. 1) at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished opinion 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 opinion 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-01970-UNJ Document 62 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 4
On February 3, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On July 22, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation. Proffer at 1-2. 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 $51,400.91 (representing $50,000 for pain and suffering, and
$1,400.91 for past unreimbursable 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 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-01970-UNJ Document 62 Filed 08/31/22 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MEGAN SWANZER,
Petitioner, No. 19-1970V
v. Chief Special Master Corcoran
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF DAMAGES
On December 30, 2019, Megan Swanzer (“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”), as amended. Petitioner alleges that her receipt of a tetanus-diphtheria-
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on March 4, 2018, resulted in a Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) (a Table injury). Petition at 1. On February 3, 2022, Chief
Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to
vaccine compensation for her SIRVA. See Ruling on Entitlement (ECF #46).
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00 in actual and projected
pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain and suffering has
been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
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
1

Case 1:19-vv-01970-UNJ Document 62 Filed 08/31/22 Page 4 of 4
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,400.91. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). 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 of $51,400.91, in the form of a check made payable to petitioner. 1 This
lump sum payment represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C.SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Jennifer L. Reynaud
JENNIFER L. REYNAUD
Senior 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) 305-1586
Date: July 22, 2022 Jennifer.L.Reynaud@usdoj.gov
1 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2