VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00049
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00049
Petitioner: John Hutton
Filed: 2020-01-15
Decided: 2024-07-15
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-22
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 163247

AI-assisted case summary:
John Hutton filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine he received on October 22, 2018. The case proceeded as a Table claim, as SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of an influenza vaccine and meets specific criteria. Mr. Hutton's medical records indicated pain and decreased range of motion in his left shoulder starting shortly after the vaccination, with diagnoses including supraspinatus tendon tear, rotator cuff tear, and glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Respondent initially contested compensation but later agreed to a settlement. A ruling on entitlement was issued on February 12, 2024, finding Mr. Hutton entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on July 15, 2024, a decision awarding damages was issued, granting Mr. Hutton a lump sum payment of $163,247.38. This award comprised $162,500 for pain and suffering and $747.38 for past unreimbursable expenses, representing all elements of compensation available under the Vaccine Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00049-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/12/2024) regarding 66 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-49V
UNPUBLISHED
JOHN HUTTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 12, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact;
Influenza (“Flu”); Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA);
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 15, 2020, John Hutton 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
22, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled
to compensation.
1 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 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
During the claim’s life, some effort was made at settlement, but the parties could
not find agreement. Accordingly, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on September 19,
2022, contesting compensation. Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record on
November 2, 2022. Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 59. Respondent
filed a response on January 26, 2023. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for
Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 62. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left shoulder on October 22, 2018. Ex. 1 at
6. On December 6, 2018 (forty-five days after vaccination), Petitioner saw chiropractor
Casey Rogers with complaints of decreased range of motion in his left shoulder. Ex. 7 at
2. That same day, Petitioner saw nurse practitioner (“NP”) Viki Sullivan with complaints
of left shoulder pain “since” a flu vaccination. Ex. 2 at 32. An examination showed left
shoulder tenderness, pain, but full range of motion and strength. Id. X-rays were taken on
December 10, 2018, which showed osteoarthritis. Ex. 2 at 73.
On February 18, 2019, Petitioner saw physician’s assistant (“PA”) Kathleen Marty,
for a report related to a workers’ compensation claim. Ex. 13 at 53. The report noted that
Petitioner’s injury occurred on October 22, 2018, and that Petitioner had constant
shoulder pain since administration of a vaccination on October 22, 2018. Id. at 53, 54. An
examination showed tenderness and reduced range of motion. Id. at 54. Petitioner was
diagnosed with a supraspinatus tendon tear. Id. at 56. An MRI performed on February 26,
2019 revealed partial tendon tears, tendinosis, and glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Ex. 2 at
74.
Petitioner began physical therapy on March 6, 2019. Ex. 3 at 27. He was assessed
with reduced range of motion and strength. Id. Between March 6, 2019 and April 15, 2019,
Petitioner attended seven physical therapy sessions. Id. at 7. During the timeframe,
Petitioner saw Dr. Michael Cohen and reported pain since his flu vaccine. Ex. 2 at 34. His
pain was described as radiating to his right forearm and hand, and he was assessed with
a rotator cuff and bicep tendon tear along with arthrosis. Id. at 37.
Petitioner presented to Dr. Ryan Bennett, an orthopedist, on April 1, 2019, for
shoulder pain since he received a flu shot in October. Ex. 4 at 13, 14. He reported
worsening pain in his shoulder and arm, as well as weakness. After an examination and
review of Petitioner’s MRI, Dr. Bennett assessed him with a partial thickness rotator cuff
2

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 7
tear, subacromial bursitis, a SLAP tear, glenohumeral arthritis, and developing adhesive
capsulitis. Id. at 17. A cortisone injection was administered at that time as well. Id.
On May 6, 2019, Petitioner again presented with left shoulder pain to another
orthopedist, Dr. Marko Bodor. Ex. 5 at 5. Petitioner reported that his shoulder pain began
when the vaccination needle was inserted, and thereafter his symptoms gradually
worsened. Id. Dr. Bodor noted that “the patient appears to have a SIRVA injury.” Id. at 6.
An intra-articular injection was administered at that time. Id. at 7. An EMG/NCV study the
next day was normal. Ex. 8.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Bodor on July 29, 2019, reporting increased shoulder
pain that began to return approximately one month after his steroid injection. Ex. 9 at 5.
A third steroid injection was therefore administered. Id. An MR arthrogram on July 30,
2019 showed osteoarthritis, degenerative lateral tear, multiple partial tendon tears with
tendinosis, and chronic reactive synovial hypertrophy. Ex. 2 at 78. On October 25, 2019,
Petitioner underwent a tendon debridement and debridement of a cortical cyst. Ex. 9 at
3.
On February 4, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Bodor complaining of restricted
range of motion. Ex. 13 at 68. Dr. Bodor opined that Petitioner had developed
complications which contributed to his symptomatic osteoarthritis. Id. A fourth cortisone
injection was administered. Id.
Petitioner eventually underwent a total shoulder arthroplasty and bicep tendinosis
on October 17, 2020. Ex. 16. Thereafter, he attended twelve physical therapy sessions.
Ex. 14. Petitioner continued to treat periodically thereafter. On September 24, 2021, Dr.
Bodor preformed another debridement and aspiration. Ex. 17 at 3. He also saw Dr.
Michael Tran for the purpose of issuing a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation Report
related to his left shoulder. Ex. 18. Dr. Tran assessed Petitioner with a unique SIRVA that
caused significant tissue injuries, and recommended various future medical care. Id.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
3

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 7
petitioner must establish that he suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which
case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination
he received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A
vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests
all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
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).
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for his injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
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 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. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain his Symptoms
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner
meets this criterion, and I find that he has demonstrated a lack of history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder that would explain his symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
his Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported decreased range of motion and shoulder pain “since”
a flu vaccine’s administration. Ex. 7 at 2, Ex. 2 at 32. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to
link his shoulder pain temporally to the vaccination. See Ex. 13 at 53 (record from
February 18, 2019, stating that Petitioner had constant shoulder pain after receiving a flu
vaccine on October 22, 2018); Ex. 2 at 35 (record from March 7, 2019, reporting shoulder
5

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 7
pain since his vaccination); Ex. 5 at 5 (record from May 6, 2019, stating that Petitioner’s
symptoms started when had a flu shot administered in October of 2018).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s statements are vague and fail to identify a
specific onset date for his shoulder symptoms. Opp. at 9-10. Even so, a finding of Table-
consistent onset can be made based on such a record. Program petitioners are not
required to marshal records setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day
and hour that their onset manifested. As noted above, Petitioner consistently linked his
shoulder pain to the October 22, 2018, flu vaccine – whereas there are no records
suggesting an onset outside of 48-hours post-vaccination.
Further, while Petitioner did delay forty-five days before seeking treatment, the
relevant medical records show that he did not attribute his pain to any other injury or
cause. In fact, it is common for SIRVA petitioners to delay seeking treatment, thinking the
injury will resolve on its own, especially since patients are often told by medical providers
at the time of vaccination to expect some soreness and pain for a period of time after.
And individuals also often misconstrue the nature of their injury, and therefore fail to
inform treaters of all specific facts relevant to onset until later. Here, the added detail of
onset did not “wait” for months before being provided, but began to be reported less than
two months post-vaccination. And Petitioner affirmatively and repeatedly linked his
shoulder pain to the flu vaccine.
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to his Left Shoulder
Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing
in the records to suggest otherwise.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 69 Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 7
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on October
22, 2018, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 6; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a
covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for his injury. Ex. 10; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, he has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by March 1, 2024,
indicating whether a brief attempt at settlement discussions would be productive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00049-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-15
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/03/2024) regarding 76 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-49V
JOHN HUTTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 3, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 15, 2020, John Hutton 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 vaccine administered on October 22,
2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On February 12, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On May 30, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $163,247.38
(comprised of $162,500 for pain and suffering and $747.38 for past unreimbursable
expenses). Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 5
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 $163,247.38 (comprised of $162,500 for pain and suffering and
$747.38 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 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
JOHN HUTTON, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 20-49V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On November 2, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration. ECF No. 59. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
January 26, 2023. ECF No. 62. On February 12, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling
on Entitlement finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 66.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $162,500,00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s February 12, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $747.38. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $163,247.38, in the form of
a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, John Hutton: $163,247.38
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00049-UNJ Document 83 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 5
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Camille M. Collett
CAMILLE M. COLLETT
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) 616-4098
DATED: May 30, 2024 E-mail: Camille.M.Collett@usdoj.gov
3