VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00109
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00109
Petitioner: Eva Gordon
Filed: 2020-01-31
Decided: 2023-03-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-06
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 62500

AI-assisted case summary:
Eva Gordon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 31, 2020, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 6, 2018. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On October 5, 2022, the Special Master determined that the vaccination was administered to Petitioner in the right arm/shoulder on October 6, 2018. In response, the Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report on November 14, 2022, conceding that Ms. Gordon suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation, while preserving the right to appeal the October 5, 2022, findings of fact. Based on the Respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on December 23, 2022, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on February 7, 2023, the parties submitted a proffer on the award of compensation. The Respondent proffered that Petitioner should be awarded $62,500.00, representing all elements of compensation available under the Act, and Petitioner agreed. On March 13, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages, awarding Ms. Gordon a lump sum payment of $62,500.00, payable by check to Petitioner. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, and Respondent was represented by Sarah Black Rifkin of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Eva Gordon alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine administered on October 6, 2018. The Respondent conceded that Petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation, following the Court's finding that the vaccination occurred on the alleged date. The case proceeded based on this concession. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on December 23, 2022, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. A subsequent Proffer on Award of Compensation, filed by Respondent on February 7, 2023, proposed an award of $62,500.00, representing all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), to which Petitioner agreed. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on March 13, 2023, awarding a lump sum of $62,500.00 to Petitioner. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop, and Respondent by Sarah Black Rifkin. The public text indicates a "Table Injury" theory, and the specific mechanism of injury, onset, symptoms, and medical experts are not detailed in the provided public documents.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00109-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-11-07
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/05/2022) regarding 37 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0109V
UNPUBLISHED
EVA GORDON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 5, 2022
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)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 31, 2020, Eva Gordon 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received in her
right shoulder on October 6, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters, and a fact dispute has arisen with
respect to Petitioner’s ability to establish an element of her claim.
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 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more
likely than not administered in Petitioner’s right arm/shoulder, as Petitioner has alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the matter’s initiation in January 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report
six months later, recommending entitlement to compensation be denied under the terms
of the Vaccine Act. Respondent’s Report at 1. ECF No. 29. Respondent argued that the
contemporaneous records established that the vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s
left deltoid – not her right as alleged. Id. at 5-6.
In a Scheduling Order filed on June 22, 2021, I expressed the preliminary view that
based on review of the existing record, a hearing would not be necessary, and that I
intended to issue a fact finding as to the site of vaccine administration after providing the
parties with an opportunity to file briefs and any evidence they wish to have considered.
ECF No. 30. On August 6, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record
regarding the site of vaccine administration. ECF No. 32. On September 7, 2021,
Respondent filed a response brief, and on September 14, 2021, Petitioner filed her reply.
ECF Nos. 33, 34. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
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).
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 & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 6
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.
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).
IV. Finding of Fact
Based upon a review of the entire record, I find that the flu vaccine Petitioner
received on October 6, 2018, was likely administered in her right arm/shoulder, as she
contends. Specifically, I base my finding on the following evidence:
3

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 4 of 6
• Petitioner was treated for left shoulder and arm pain from August through November
of 2013. Ex. 17 at 20-31. A medical note documenting Petitioner’s November 8, 2013
appointment for left shoulder and arm symptoms indicates that her “[o]ther shoulder
is normal.” Id. at 30.
• Petitioner received a flu shot on October 6, 2018. Ex. 2 at 3. The record of vaccine
administration indicates that the shot was administered into her left deltoid. Id.
• In her affidavit, signed on January 28, 2020, Petitioner avers that she asked the
pharmacist to administer the flu shot in her right shoulder “because I had left arm
issues in the past and planned on returning to volunteering with raptors (birds) which
requires holding them on the left arm.” Ex. 1 at 2.
• In an affidavit signed on February 7, 2020, Petitioner’s husband testifies that “[t]he
same day after getting the shot [Petitioner] came home and complained about pain in
her right shoulder where she got the shot.” Ex. 13 at 1.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Anupam Pradhan on October 24, 2018 (three weeks post-
vaccination) concerning bilateral shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 9-10. The medical note
documenting this appointment indicates that Petitioner “had adhesive capsulitis [in her
l]eft shoulder 4 y[ears] ago,” and that “[s]he was given a [f]lu shot [on] 10/6/18 with
persistent right shoulder pain.” Id. at 9. Dr. Pradhan’s assessment included bilateral
bursitis and shoulder pain. Id. at 10.
• Petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation for bilateral shoulder pain
on October 26, 2019. Ex. 4 at 34-38. She reported “r[igh]t shoulder pain beginning
Oct. 6, 2018 after [the] flu shot.” Id. at 34.
• Petitioner returned to Dr. Pradhan on November 21, 2018 with complaints of bilateral
shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 6-7. The medical note again documents Petitioner’s report of
right shoulder pain following her October 2018 vaccination. Id. at 6.
• In her July 23, 2020 affidavit, Beverly Morgan recalls that on January 18, 2019,
“[Petitioner] told me that she injured her right shoulder from a flu shot she received a
few months earlier.” Ex. 19 at 2.
• Petitioner presented to physical therapy for both of her shoulders on January 30, 2019.
Ex. 4 at 81-85. The physical therapist noted Petitioner’s report of right shoulder pain
“due to the flu shot.” Id. at 81.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 5 of 6
• Petitioner underwent acupuncture on February 4, 2019. Ex. 6 at 1. The note
documenting this appointment reflects Petitioner’s report of “[p]ain [that] began after
receiving flu vaccine injection into [r]ight shoulder.” Id.
• On March 29, 2019, Petitioner had an initial evaluation with a chiropractor. Ex. 7 at
25-27. Petitioner reported having “a flu shot in October 2018 and . . . I had shoulder
pain since. Had an MRI showing rotator cuff tear (minor) and frozen shoulder in my
right arm where I had the injection.” Id. at 25.
• On an August 5, 2019 patient information form, Petitioner indicated that she was
diagnosed with frozen shoulder in October 2018. Ex. 8 at 22. Petitioner further
indicated that this condition “started after flu shot.” Id.
• On July 29, 2020, Petitioner presented for chiropractic treatment. Ex. 18 at 1-4.
Petitioner’s chief complaint was “[n]eedle injury from the flu vaccine on right
arm/shoulder.” Id. at 1.
• In an affidavit signed on February 18, 2020, Emily Masopust averred that “[Petitioner]
told me that she got a flu shot that did some damage to her right shoulder.” Ex. 15 at
1.
The above-referenced evidence supports a finding that the vaccine at issue was
likely administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder. In the context of seeking care, Petitioner
consistently reported that the vaccine had been administered in her right arm, and that
her injury was associated with the vaccination. Accordingly, there is some record support
for her contention about the situs of administration beyond witness statements. The
record of Petitioner’s October 24, 2018 visit to Dr. Pradhan – the first record in which she
complained of pain associated with her vaccination - is particular persuasive. During this
visit, Petitioner reported that “[s]he was given a [f]lu shot [on] 10/6/18 with persistent right
shoulder pain.” Ex. 3 at 9. This record is only 18 days after vaccination, and is the most
contemporaneous record other than the vaccine administration record itself.
In addition, Petitioner has provided a logical explanation for why she would have
specifically requested that the vaccine be administered in her right arm. In her affidavit,
Petitioner asserts that she asked the pharmacist to inject the vaccine into her right arm
because of previous “left arm issues.” Ex. 1 at 2. And the medical records show that
Petitioner had a history of left shoulder pain that began approximately five years before
her flu shot. See Ex. 17 at 20-31.
I acknowledge that the vaccine record itself does not set forth the site of
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 3. However, it is the first record at issue, and stands alone in
5

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/07/22 Page 6 of 6
suggesting a left shoulder situs. All other medical records filed in this case and bearing
on Petitioner’s post-vaccination treatment support a finding that the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right arm, and Petitioner’s statements amplify reasons to find
this to be the case. See, e.g. Parker v. HHS, No. 15-1331V, 2016 WL 3443929 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2016)(finding that a vaccine record recording administration in the
left arm was incorrect based primarily on petitioner’s consistent attribution of his right
shoulder condition to his vaccination throughout his treatment).
Accordingly, preponderant evidence establishes that the vaccination alleged as
causal in this case was more likely than not administered to Petitioner in the right
arm/shoulder on October 6, 2018.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my finding of fact regarding the site of vaccine administration, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, November 4, 2022, a status report
concerning how he intends to proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00109-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-24
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/23/2022) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 45 Filed 01/24/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0109V
UNPUBLISHED
EVA GORDON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 23, 2022
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)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 31, 2020, Eva Gordon filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received in her right
shoulder on October 6, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 5, 2022, I issued Findings of Fact in which I determined that “the
vaccination alleged as causal in this case was more likely than not administered to
Petitioner in the right arm/shoulder on October 6, 2018.” ECF No. 37 at 6. In reaction, on
November 14, 2022, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report stating that (while
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 45 Filed 01/24/23 Page 2 of 2
preserving his right to appeal the October 5, 2022 Fact Finding) he agrees that petitioner
suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
at 4.
Specifically, Respondent stated as follows:
In light of the Court’s fact finding and the medical records submitted in this case,
[the Secretary has] concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the
Vaccine Injury Table . . . Therefore, based on the record as it now stands and
subject to his right to appeal the Court’s Findings of Fact, respondent does not
dispute that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under
the Act.”
Id. at 4-5
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_20-vv-00109-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-13
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/08/2023) regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0109V
UNPUBLISHED
EVA GORDON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 8, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 31, 2020, Eva Gordon filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered
on October 6, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 23, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 7, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $62,500.00.
Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
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 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 5
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 $62,500.00 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-00109-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/13/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
EVA GORDON,
Petitioner, No. 20-109V (ECF)
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 31, 2020, Eva Gordon (“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 she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on
October 6, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1, at 1.
On November 14, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed
an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of the medical records submitted in
this case and the Court’s finding that petitioner received the flu vaccine in her right arm,
respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Vaccine Act. Amended Rule 4(c) Report, ECF No. 40, at 4-5. On December 23,

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/13/23 Page 4 of 5
2022, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine
compensation.1 ECF No. 42.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$62,500.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be 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 following:2 a lump sum payment of $62,500.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Eva Gordon: $62,500.00
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Court 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 Court’s December 23, 2022
entitlement decision.
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00109-UNJ Document 51 Filed 03/13/23 Page 5 of 5
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
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Sarah B. Rifkin
SARAH B. RIFKIN
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) 305-5997
Sarah.Rifkin@usdoj.gov
Dated: February 7, 2023
3