VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00182
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00182
Petitioner: Hilary Harris
Filed: 2020-02-20
Decided: 2023-04-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-04
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 127312

AI-assisted case summary:
Hilary Harris filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from an influenza vaccination received on October 4, 2018. The petition stated that the injury caused pain lasting longer than six months. Respondent conceded that Petitioner was entitled to compensation, finding that her claim met the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner had no prior history of shoulder issues, that her pain began within 48 hours of the vaccination, that the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the injection shoulder, and that no other condition explained her symptoms. The ruling on entitlement was issued on February 27, 2023. Subsequently, on April 11, 2023, a decision awarding damages was issued based on a proffer. Respondent proffered an award of $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, $1,832.23 for past unreimbursed expenses, and $480.35 to satisfy a State of California Medicaid lien. Petitioner agreed with the proffered award. The court awarded a total of $127,312.23 in compensation.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00182-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/27/2023) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00182-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-182V
UNPUBLISHED
HILARY HARRIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 2023
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)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 20, 2020, Hilary Harris 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), resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination
she received on October 4, 2018. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the
vaccination was administered within the United States, her pain lasted longer than six
months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has every received compensation in
the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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-00182-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2
On February 27, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at
1. Respondent stated that he “reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that
[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 6. Specifically, Respondent
determined “[P]etitioner had 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; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of
vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder
in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or
abnormality present that would explain [P]etitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6-7 citing 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Respondent further agrees that the records show that the case was
timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies
the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 7.
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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00182-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/27/2023) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00182-UNJ Document 46 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 2
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-182V
UNPUBLISHED
HILARY HARRIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 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)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 20, 2020, Hilary Harris 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), resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination
she received on October 4, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 27, 2023, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) report and proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”). On February 27, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was
issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. In the Proffer, Respondent
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-00182-UNJ Document 46 Filed 04/11/23 Page 2 of 2
indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, $1,832.23
for past unreimbursed expenses, and $480.35 to satisfy a State of California Medicaid
lien. Proffer at 7-8. Also in the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Id. at 8. 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 Proffer, I award Petitioner the following
compensation:
1. A lump sum payment of $126,832.23, comprised of $125,000.00 for past
pain and suffering and $1,832.23 for unreimbursed expenses, in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner, Hilary Harris.
2. A lump sum payment of $480.35, representing compensation for
satisfaction of a State of California Medicaid lien, payable jointly to
Petitioner and Department of Health Care Services, and mailed to:
Department of Health Care Services
Recovery Branch - MS 4720
P.O. Box 997421
Sacramento, CA 95899-7421
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The clerk of the 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