VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00127
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00127
Petitioner: Linda Fletcher
Filed: 2020-02-04
Decided: 2023-11-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-03
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 81382

AI-assisted case summary:
Linda Fletcher filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 3, 2018. The respondent initially argued that entitlement should be denied because the vaccine administration record indicated the injection was in the left shoulder, not the right, and that the onset of pain did not occur within 48 hours of vaccination. However, after reviewing the evidence, including Petitioner's declarations, her daughter's declaration, and subsequent medical records, the Chief Special Master found that Petitioner most likely received the vaccine in her right shoulder and that her pain began on the same day as the vaccination, satisfying the Table requirements for SIRVA. A subsequent decision awarded Linda Fletcher $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,382.41 for past unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $81,382.41.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00127-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-25
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/16/2023) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-127V
LINDA FLETCHER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 16, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLMENT1
On February 4, 2020, Linda Fletcher 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 a Table injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in
her right shoulder on October 3, 2018. Petition at 1; Ex. 9 at ¶ 1. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (“SPU”).
1 Because this Fact Ruling 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 10
After a full review of the evidence, I find it most likely that Petitioner received her
October 3, 2018 flu vaccination in her right deltoid or shoulder, suffered the onset of her
shoulder pain within 48 hours of October 3, 2018 flu vaccination, and has satisfied all
Table requirements for a SIRVA injury, and is otherwise entitled to compensation for her
SIRVA.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the case’s initiation and SPU assignment, Respondent filed a Rule 4 Report
recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied, because Petitioner has failed
to meet two QAI requirements to establish a Table SIRVA injury. ECF No. 23. First,
Respondent asserts that the vaccination record indicates that Petitioner received the
vaccine in her left shoulder, and therefore it could not be responsible for her right shoulder
injury. ECF No. 23 at 6. Second, Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the onset of her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id.
at 6-7.
I therefore set deadlines for the filing of briefs addressing Petitioner’s entitlement
to compensation. ECF No. 24. On December 20, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling
on Record in support of this claim. ECF No. 28. On December 22, 2021, Respondent filed
an opposition brief maintaining the arguments set forth in his Rule 4 Report that Petitioner
has failed to establish a SIRVA Table claim. ECF No. 30. On December 29, 2021,
Petitioner filed a Reply brief. ECF No. 31. This matter is ripe for my resolution.
II. Authority
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
2

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 3 of 10
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
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 petitioner must
establish that she 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 she 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 a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). 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;
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
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 4 of 10
(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).
III. Relevant Factual Evidence
I have reviewed all evidence filed to date, but limit my discussion below to those
items most relevant to the disputed situs and onset questions. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii-
iii); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B).
A. Records
• A Vaccine Administration Record from Publix Pharmacy indicates that Petitioner
received a flu vaccine on October 3, 2018. “LA” or left arm, is circled, as the “Site
Given.” Ex. 1 at 1. The record is signed, but not dated, by pharmacist, Nichole
Guidish. Id.
• A separate record, or letter, from Publix Pharmacy, dated July 30, 2020, provides
a statement that Petitioner “was administered an influenza vaccination on October
3, 2018. The vaccine was administered in her right deltoid.” Ex. 11 (emphasis
added). The record is signed by pharmacist, Ryan Padgett. Id.
• On November 12, 2018 (approximately six weeks post- vaccination), Petitioner
was seen by her primary care provider, Rajneesh K. Bhalla, MD., in a “[f]ollow-up
visit for to multiple problems.” Ex. 2 at 10. The record indicates that Petitioner
received a flu vaccine two weeks ago, but does not otherwise discuss shoulder
pain. Id. at 12.
• A separate record, or letter, from Dr. Bhalla dated September 10, 2019, states that
Ms. Fletcher, his patient of more than 15 years, “had a [f]lu vaccine on October 3,
2018 at [a] local Publix Pharmacy.” Ex. 5. Dr. Bhalla indicates that Petitioner “was
seen in my office on November 12, 2018 and mentioned pain in right shoulder
[that] started immediately after the flu injection.” Id. Dr. Bhalla explains that
4

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 5 of 10
believing her shoulder pain would be “transient,” Petitioner was provided “verbal
assurance and supportive treatment.” Id.
• On January 24, 2019 (over three and-a-half months following Petitioner’s
vaccination), Petitioner was seen again by Dr. Bhalla “for multiple problems.” Ex.
2 at 6. The record indicates that Petitioner was “[c]omplaining of pain in the right
shoulder and unable to lift or move the shoulder. Patient correlates since she had
flu vaccine at the local pharmacy and developed pain in the right shoulder and
restriction in the mo[ve]ment. Symptoms are getting worse.” Id. On examination,
Petitioner exhibited diminished range of motion in her right shoulder. Id. at 7.
Petitioner was assessed with right shoulder joint pain and frozen shoulder. She
was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. Id. at 8.
• On February 4, 2019, Petitioner was returned to see Dr. Bhalla. Dr. Bhalla noted
on “review patient did have flu shot last October at the Publix pharmacy and since
then she has pain and diminished range of movements on the right shoulder, and
correlates to the flu vaccine and mentions she almost cried as she thinks injection
was given at wrong place.” Id. at 3. Petitioner was again assessed with right
shoulder joint pain and frozen shoulder. Id. at 4. Petitioner was advised to get an
evaluation from an orthopedic surgeon, however she “want[ed] to get physical
therapy. Id.
• On February 19, 2019, Petitioner underwent a Physical Therapy Initial
Examination. Petitioner provided a “History of Present Condition/Mechanism of
Injury” as follows: “Patient states that she had a flu shot in her right shoulder [in]
October 2018 and it was very painful. She reported it to her Doctor and was told it
would resolve on its own but it has not.” Ex. 4 at 51. Petitioner engaged in 24
physical therapy sessions through April 22, 2019. Ex. 6 at 10.
• Thereafter, Petitioner continued to receive treatment for her right shoulder pain –
ultimately underdoing right shoulder surgery on August 16, 2019. Ex. 8 at 102.
B. Declarations
Petitioner executed two signed and sworn declarations on February 18, 2020, and
December 19, 2021, addressing her vaccination. Exs. 9, 17. In regard to the situs dispute,
Petitioner states that she received a flu vaccine at Publix in her right arm on October 3,
2018. Petitioner explains that she received it in her right arm because she previously
suffered from cancer in her left breast and had radiation on that side. Ex. 9, ¶ 1; Ex. 17,
¶ 1. Petitioner states that the shot was very painful, and that the following day she could
not do anything with her right arm. Ex. 9, ¶ 1. Petitioner indicates that she reported her
5

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 6 of 10
shoulder pain to Dr. Bhalla at her November 12, 2018 appointment, but was reassured it
would resolve. Ex. 9, ¶ 2. She states when she saw Dr. Bhalla later she again reported
that she had “no mobility in [her] right arm and shoulder,” and he referred her for additional
treatment. Ex. 9, ¶ 2.
Petitioner also filed signed and sworn declarations from her 49 year-old daughter,
Tara Luscavich, and a friend, David Townsend. Exs. 18-19. Ms. Luscavich states that
Petitioner “told me that immediately upon receiving the flu shot in her right arm, she had
severe shoulder pain and even told the pharmacist.” Ex. 18, ¶ 1. Ms. Luscavich adds that
Ms. Fletcher’s pain “intensified in the weeks that followed,” and she recalls her mother
“crying on the phone, as she knew something was wrong and she was scared.” Id. Mr.
Townsend states that he and his wife met with Petitioner “regularly for social events and
drinks and always greeted each other with a hug. One evening in October 2018 when I
went to hug her, she winched when I touched her right arm. She went on to explain that
she had recently had a flu shot at Publix and since the injection she had experienced
acute pain in her right arm.” Ex. 19, ¶ 1.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Situs
The first disputed factor in this case is whether Ms. Fletcher received the flu
vaccine in her right shoulder, and therefore her “[p]ain and reduced range of motion are
limited to the [right] shoulder in which the intramuscular [flu] vaccine was administered.”
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s vaccine administration record resolves this
issue, since the pharmacist circled “LA” - indicating that the situs of Petitioner’s
vaccination was her left shoulder. ECF No. 23 at 6. This contention has merit – especially
given that the recording of situs here required a specific action (circling) on the vaccine
administration record.4 But a review of the record in its totality reveals that Petitioner’s
contention has preponderant support.
In so finding, I observe that it has often been determined in the Vaccine Program
that a vaccine had been administered even though direct documentation was missing,
based upon other medical records and/or witness testimony. Certainly witness testimony
can be used to overcome the presumption of accuracy often afforded to
4 Vaccine administration records with an electronic recording of situs are more easily prone to error. See
Rodgers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020).
6

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 7 of 10
contemporaneous medical records, if the testimony is “consistent, clear, cogent, and
compelling.” Camery v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998)
(citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
Here, two factors favor Petitioner’s version of events. First, the witness statements
are persuasive on the situs issue. Petitioner’s declarations provide a reasonable
explanation for why she would have received her flu vaccination in her right shoulder. As
noted above, Petitioner explains that she received the shot in her right (dominant arm)
because she previously suffered from cancer in left breast and had radiation on the left
side. Ex. 9, ¶ 1; Ex. 17, ¶ 1. In addition, Ms. Luscavich recalls in her sworn declaration
that Petitioner “told me that immediately upon receiving the flu shot in her right arm, she
had severe shoulder pain and even told the pharmacist.” Ex. 18, ¶ 1 (emphasis added).5
Second, the medical records in which shoulder pain was discussed consistently
report right shoulder pain associated with the vaccination – necessarily implying that she
received her vaccination in her right shoulder. Ex. 2 at 3, 6. And when commencing
physical therapy on February 19, 2019, Petitioner did explicitly report to her physical
therapist “that she had a flu shot in her right shoulder [in] October 2018 and it was very
painful. She reported it to her Doctor and was told it would resolve on its own but it has
not.” Ex. 4 at 51 (emphasis added).
Taken together as a whole, in this case Petitioner’s cogent explanation in her
declarations for why she received her vaccination in her right shoulder, supporting
declaration from Petitioner’s daughter, and subsequent contemporaneous treatment
records preponderantly demonstrate that Petitioner most likely received her October 3,
2018 flu vaccine in her right shoulder and outweigh her vaccine administration record.
In light of this finding, I also find Petitioner has satisfied the third SIRVA QAI
criterion and established her “[p]ain and reduced range of motion [from her flu vaccination]
are limited to the [right] shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.”
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii).
5 I acknowledge that Petitioner submitted a letter from a Publix Pharmacy pharmacist, dated July 30, 2020,
which provides a statement that Petitioner “was administered an influenza vaccination on October 3, 2018.
The vaccine was administered in her right deltoid.” Ex. 11. However, no basis was provided for this
statement signed nearly 22 months after Petitioner’s vaccination by a pharmacist other than the one who
signed Petitioner’s vaccine administration record. Id. Accordingly, I assigned little to no weight to this
evidence.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 8 of 10
B. Onset
The second disputed factor is whether Petitioner experienced the onset of her pain
within 48 hours after her October 3, 2018 vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B),
(c)(10)(ii).
As Respondent correctly points out, the records corresponding to Petitioner’s
November 12, 2018 appointment with her primary care provider, Dr. Bhalla – the first after
vaccination - fail to document any report of shoulder pain. In fact, reports of shoulder pain
do not appear in the medical records until Petitioner’s next visit with Dr. Bhalla, on January
24, 2019 – more than three months after Petitioner’s October 3, 2018 flu vaccination. Ex.
2 at 6.
However, Petitioner’s January 24, 2019 record, and subsequent treatment
records describing the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain, consistently link
Petitioner’s shoulder pain with or “since” her October 3, 2018 flu vaccine. Ex. 2 at 6 (Dr.
Bhalla’s January 24, 2019 record stating “[p]atient correlates [her right shoulder pain as]
since she had flu vaccine at the local pharmacy and developed pain in the right shoulder
and restriction in the mo[ve]ment. Symptoms are getting worse”); Ex. 2 at 3 (Dr. Bhalla’s
February 4, 2019 record stating on “review patient did have flu shot last October at the
Publix pharmacy and since then she has pain and diminished range of movements on the
right shoulder, and correlates to the flu vaccine and mentions she almost cried as she
thinks injection was given at wrong place”); Ex. 4 at 5 (Petitioner’s February 19, 2019
initial PT evaluation recording “[p]atient states that she had a flu shot in her right shoulder
[in] October 2018 and it was very painful. She reported it to her Doctor and was told it
would resolve on its own but it has not”).
Additionally, Dr. Bhalla’s signed statement, dated September 2019, indicates that
Petitioner did in fact report her shoulder pain at her November 12, 2018 appointment. Ex.
5. Dr. Bhalla states that Petitioner “was seen in my office on November 12, 2018 and
mentioned pain in right shoulder [that] started immediately after the flu injection.” Id. Dr.
Bhalla explains that believing Petitioner’s shoulder pain would be “transient,” Petitioner
was provided “verbal assurance and supportive treatment.” Id. I find Dr. Bhalla’s
statement regarding the expected “transient” duration of Petitioner’s post vaccination pain
to be a reasonable explanation for why Petitioner’s shoulder pain is not documented in
his November 12, 2018 medical record, and is consistent with Petitioner’s allegation that
Dr. Bhalla stated her pain “would go away” when she reported it at her November 12,
2018 appointment. Ex. 9, ¶ 2. Additionally, both Dr. Bhalla’s statement and Petitioner’s
own declaration are consistent with each other and the history Petitioner provided during
her initial PT evaluation that “she had a flu shot in her right shoulder [in] October 2018
8

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 9 of 10
and it was very painful. She reported it to her Doctor and was told it would resolve on its
own but it has not.” Ex. 4 at 51. The third-party witness declarations are consistent with
Table onset allegations as well. See Exs. 18-19.
The Vaccine Act specifically contemplates that in some cases 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). The Act elaborates that “[s]uch 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.
In sum, while the most immediately-contemporaneous records (Dr. Bharra’s
November 12, 2018 records) do not support a finding of Table onset, those records are
outweighed (and outnumbered) by the consistent onset histories contained in Petitioner’s
subsequent treatment records – the most persuasive of which – are collectively dated
within five months of Petitioner’s October 3, 2018 vaccination. Ex. 13 at 3, 13; Ex. 14 at
6; Ex. 15 at 8, 11. Onset in these later records is further corroborated by the signed
statement of Dr. Bharra, and the declarations of Petitioner and two other witness
declarations offered in support of Petitioner’s case. The fact that several of these
treatment-related records were generated within five months of vaccination is also
relevant to this inquiry; this is not a case where a petitioner relies on records long after
the immediate timeframe to prove onset.
Thus, the totality of the evidence preponderantly supports the conclusion that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of her vaccination, and likely began
the same day – October 3, 2018 – that her vaccination was administered, meaning the
Table onset requirement has been satisfied. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10)(ii).
However, if it becomes necessary for me to determine damages in this matter, I will take
into consideration the fact that Petitioner’s shoulder pain is not documented in her
contemporaneous medical records until more than three months following her vaccination
– indicating that Petitioner’s shoulder pain (even if most likely reported to Dr. Bharra,
approximately six weeks after her vaccination, on November 12, 2018) was not severe
enough to warrant mention close-in-time to vaccination, or to compel Petitioner to make
an earlier medical appointment to address her shoulder pain.
9

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/25/23 Page 10 of 10
C. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
Petitioner has established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. There
is no history of shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction that would explain the post-
vaccination injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Additionally, there is not preponderant
evidence of another condition that would explain the symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). However, even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table
injury or established causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant
evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered
vaccine, residual effects of injury lasting six months, etc. See generally §
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are established or undisputed in this claim. I
therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
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. A Damages Order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00127-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-06
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/06/2023) regarding 37 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-127V
LINDA FLETCHER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 6, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 4, 2020, Linda Fletcher 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 Table injury - a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in
her right shoulder on October 3, 2018. Petition at 1; Ex. 9 at ¶ 1. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 16, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On October 5, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00 for pain and
suffering and $1,382.41 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer,
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-00127-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 5
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 $81,382.41 (representing $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$1,382.41 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-00127-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
___________________________________
)
LINDA FLETCHER, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 20-127V (ECF)
) Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
v. )
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 4, 2020, Linda Fletcher (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of
an influenza vaccination that she received on October 3, 2018. Petition at 1. On September 10,
2021, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report
recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 23. On December 20,
2021, petitioner filed Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record. ECF No. 28. On
December 22, 2021, respondent filed a response, asserting that petitioner had not demonstrated
by preponderant evidence that: (1) pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder
in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and (2) petitioner’s onset of an alleged
Table SIRVA injury occurred within forty-eight hours of vaccination. ECF No. 30. Petitioner’s
reply followed on December 29, 2021. ECF No. 31. On August 16, 2023, the Chief Special
Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 32.

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/06/23 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00 in pain and suffering.
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
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,382.41. 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 following: a lump sum payment of $81,382.41, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.1
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Linda Fletcher: $81,382.41
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00127-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/06/23 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
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Rachelle P. Bishop
RACHELLE P. BISHOP
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
(202) 616-3662
Rachelle.P.Bishop@usdoj.gov
DATED: October 5, 2023
3