VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00365
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00365
Petitioner: Derek Strand
Filed: 2020-03-31
Decided: 2023-06-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-12
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35000

AI-assisted case summary:
Derek Strand filed a petition on March 31, 2020, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 12, 2018. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. Petitioner contended that he met the burden of proof for both a Table SIRVA and an off-Table claim. Respondent initially contested the duration and scope of the injury, arguing that Petitioner had not established residual effects lasting more than six months and that his symptoms did not begin within 48 hours of vaccination, nor did he have documented reduced range of motion consistent with a Table SIRVA. Petitioner sought a ruling on entitlement and damages. On January 18, 2023, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that Petitioner had satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA, including that his injury and its residual effects lasted for more than six months, that the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and that he suffered from reduced range of motion. The Special Master noted that the case represented a "close-call" regarding severity and range of motion, and that the injury was "fairly mild." Petitioner was found entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 20, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on the award of compensation, proposing an award of $35,000.00, which Petitioner agreed to. On June 14, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages, awarding Derek Strand a lump sum payment of $35,000.00, representing compensation for all damages under Section 15(a). Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and Respondent was represented by Emilie Williams of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Derek Strand filed a petition alleging a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine administered on November 12, 2018. The case proceeded as a Table claim. The Special Master found that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including lack of prior shoulder issues, onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination, pain and reduced range of motion limited to the left shoulder, and no other explanatory condition. The Special Master determined that Petitioner's residual effects lasted more than six months, satisfying the severity requirement, although the injury was noted as mild. Causation was presumed under the Table. Petitioner was awarded $35,000.00 as a lump sum payment for all damages, as stipulated by both parties. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on January 18, 2023 (entitlement) and June 14, 2023 (damages). Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer, and Respondent by Emilie Williams.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00365-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-22
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/18/2023) regarding 44 Ruling on Entitlement,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 10
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0365V
UNPUBLISHED
DEREK STRAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 18, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Findings of Fact; Ruling on
Entitlement; Influenza (Flu); Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA).
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 31, 2020, Derek Strand filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”) alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on November 12,
2018. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the opinion will be available to anyone with access to the internet.
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or
other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon
review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public
access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 10
For the reasons discussed below, I find it most likely that Petitioner’s injury and its
residual effects lasted for more than six months; that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder
pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination; that Petitioner suffered from reduced range
of motion; and that Petitioner is otherwise entitled to compensation under the Vaccine
Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After initiating his claim, Petitioner filed additional records and an amended
statement of completion in April 2020. ECF Nos. 6-10. On July 7, 2021, Respondent filed
a status report indicating his willingness to informally resolve this case. ECF No. 33.
Although the parties engaged in settlement discussions throughout the summer of 2021,
the parties reached an impasse that fall. ECF No. 36.
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a ruling on the record encompassing both
issues of entitlement and damages (“Motion”) on September 16, 2021. ECF No. 40.
Petitioner contends that he has met his burden of proof for both a Table SIRVA and off-
Table claim based on the medical records. Id. Respondent filed his combined response
and Rule 4(c) Report (“Response”) on October 20, 2021. ECF No. 43. He argues that
Petitioner has failed to establish that he suffered from the residual effects of his injury for
greater than six months (the “severity requirement”). Id. at 4-5. Respondent also
maintains that Petitioner has failed to establish that his symptoms began within 48 hours
of vaccination, and that his “lack of a documented reduced range of motion is inconsistent
with a Table SIRVA.” Id. at 4-6. Respondent reserved the right to address Petitioner’s
request for damages until after entitlement is decided. Id. at 9.
II. 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 Petitioner may prevail on his claim if he has “sustained, or endured
the significant aggravation of any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). 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). If a claimant establishes that he has
suffered a “Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
Section 11(c)(1) also contains requirements concerning the type of vaccination
received and where it was administered, the duration or significance of the injury, and the
2

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 10
lack of any other award or settlement. See Section 11(c)(1)(A), (B), (D), and (E). With
regard to duration, a petitioner must establish that he suffered the residual effects or
complications of such illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than six months after
the administration of the vaccine. Section 11(c)(1)(D).
Effective for petitions filed beginning on March 21, 2017, SIRVA is an injury listed
on the Vaccine Injury Table. See Vaccine Injury Table: Qualifications and aids to
interpretation. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). The criteria are as follows:
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).
Id.
III. Relevant Factual Evidence
I have fully reviewed the evidence, including all medical records, affidavits, and the
parties’ briefing. I find most relevant the following:
• Petitioner is employed as a traveling registered nurse. Ex. 8 at 1-2. As required by
his employer, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on November 12,
2018. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 4 at 11; Ex. 8 at 2.
• In his affidavit, signed on March 31, 2020, Petitioner avers that “[i]mmediately upon
receiving the injection I experienced extreme pain.” Ex. 8 at 2.
• Caitlin Harvey submitted an affidavit dated March 31, 2020. In it, she recalls
Petitioner “stating that his shoulder was in immense pain [the morning after
vaccination], and I observed that it was nearly impossible for him to lift his arm past
90 degrees.” Ex. 10 at 1.
• In his affidavit, Petitioner states that he started “having trouble putting on my shirt
in the morning and often needed my partner’s help. I could not reach my arm above
3

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 10
my head to grab things off the shelf at the grocery store, or cook meals without
experiencing sharp pains in my shoulder. I was even having a difficult time at work
assisting patients and performing my duties as a nurse. At that point, there was a
significant loss of range of motion in my shoulder.” Ex. 8 at 3-4.
• Petitioner further avers that he works closely with physical therapists and informed
them about his shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 4. Based on their recommendations,
Petitioner began a home-based physical therapy routine. Id.
• Petitioner presented to Physician’s Assistant (“PA”) Julie Williams on December
26, 2018 – approximately six weeks post-vaccination. Ex. 5 at 5-8. The medical
record documenting this visit sets forth Petitioner’s complaint of “left shoulder pain
that began after having a flu shot on the 12th of December.” Id. at 5. (the same
document also references the correct date of vaccination, however). Id. (“since Flu
shot on 11/2, in Lft shoulder”).
• Petitioner’s symptoms were noted to include “DROM [decreased range of motion]
and soreness.” Ex. 5 at 5. On exam, Petitioner was determined to have “FROM” –
or full range of motion – but also exhibited tenderness over the left
acromioclavicular (AC) bursa, a positive Hawkins sign and positive empty can test.
Id. at 6. Petitioner was diagnosed with bursitis of the left subacromial bursa. Id.
• Two days later, on December 28, 2018, Petitioner presented to Dr. Nathaniel Baer,
an orthopedic specialist. Ex. 5 at 9-13. Petitioner reported “that he was given the
flu vaccine in November . . . [i]mmediately after that and ever since he has had
pain with range of motion in that shoulder. He has pain with the last 20-30 degrees
of abduction and flexion and has been stiff in the shoulder ever since.” Id. at 9
(emphasis added). On exam, Dr. Baer determined that the range of motion in
Petitioner’s left shoulder “is full in abduction[,] full in flexion and full in internal
rotation to T5 symmetrically. He has mild positive Hawkins test[.]” Id. at 10. Dr.
Baer’s medical note reflects that Petitioner’s symptoms could reflect “a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration for which there are multiple academic
papers.” Id. Petitioner was administered a subacromial steroid injection. Id. at 10-
11.
• In his affidavit, Petitioner states that his left shoulder pain lessened within a week
of receiving the December 28, 2018 steroid injection and continued to improve
subsequently. Ex. 8 at 4-5. He notes that “I could put on my shirt again without
assistance, get items on the top shelf at the grocery store, and go skiing again.
Slowly, I introduced other activities like rock climbing, and things were beginning
to become better.” Id. at 5. However, Petitioner further avers that his left shoulder
pain eventually returned and impacted his quality of life. Id. Although Petitioner
4

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 5 of 10
states that his symptoms returned “[t]wo or three months after” relocating to a new
city, he does not set forth a detailed timeline. Id.
• Almost six months after his previous appointment, on June 27, 2019, Petitioner
presented to Nurse Practitioner Korey Ham and reported immediate pain following
vaccination. Ex. 6 at 5. In addition to noting that he “has been doing physical
therapy,” Petitioner indicated that he had pain “with adduction, external rotation,
[and] extension. Discomfort is described as aching.” Id. Petitioner was again
assessed with bursitis of the left shoulder and was administered a second steroid
injection. Id. at 7.
• In his supplemental affidavit, signed on September 16, 2021, Petitioner states that
his shoulder pain has not resolved despite stretching and taking pain medication.
Ex. 15 at 1. Petitioner further states that he “continues to seek guidance from
licensed physical therapists I work with for techniques and stretches that will
alleviate my shoulder pain. I am dedicated to the home exercise plan for my
shoulder.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Severity
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he
suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months
after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine
Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on
November 12, 2018, and he therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that
his residual symptoms continued at least through May 12, 2019. See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012
WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing case where medical
history revealed that petitioner's Guillain-Barré syndrome resolved less than two months
after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner initially sought treatment for his shoulder
injury on December 26, 2018 and again on December 28, 2018. However, Respondent
argues that Petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence that his injury lasted
beyond December 2018 because there are no medical records documenting the
continuation of his symptoms between December 29, 2018 and June 27, 2019. Response
at 5. And while Petitioner’s June 27, 2019 documented complaint of left shoulder pain
5

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 6 of 10
indicates that Petitioner’s “[t]herapy to date” included rest, ice, avoidance of activity, over-
the-counter medication, home exercises and physical therapy, Petitioner did not produce
any direct evidence of this course of treatment. See Ex. 6 at 5.
Nevertheless, Petitioner’s affidavit and witness statement provide evidence that he
continued to experience left shoulder pain and self-treated his symptoms during the first
half of 2019 with ibuprofen, ice, and an at-home physical therapy routine recommended
by his co-workers. See Ex. 8 at 5; Ex. 10 at 2. Although a petitioner cannot establish the
length or ongoing nature of an injury merely through self-assertion, the fact that a
petitioner did not receive medical treatment for a solid/continuous six-month period does
not necessarily mean that there are no remaining residual effects of the injury. See, e.g.,
Herren, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (finding that petitioner suffered from residual symptoms
that, due to their mild nature, did not require medical care). Moreover, I find that
Petitioner’s decision to administer his own treatment reasonable, given his experience as
a registered nurse and the recommendations he received from his colleagues. See Ex. 8
at 4. And, more broadly, Petitioner’s statements in his affidavits do not contradict the
records themselves, but provide additional context of time and circumstances. Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Indeed, the June
2019 record reveals some ongoing sequelae, and helps connect the lengthy period of no
treatment to a time longer than six months post-onset.
Overall – taking into account the remedial nature of the Program and after
consideration of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that severity has been
met. At worst, this case represents a “close-call,” and in “the Vaccine Program, petitioners
are accorded the benefit of close calls.” Roberts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No.
09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2013). (Petitioner should take note,
however, that the existing record speaks to a particularly mild SIRVA, and therefore that
any damages allowed in this case will be more modest than other claims).
B. Factual Findings Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
1. Prior Condition
The first QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA is lack of a history revealing problems
associated with the affected shoulder which were experienced prior to vaccination and
would explain the symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i).
Respondent has not contested that Petitioner has met the first requirement under
the QAI for a Table SIRVA. Additionally, I do not find any evidence that Petitioner suffered
a pre-vaccination history of problems that would explain his post-vaccination shoulder
6

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 7 of 10
symptoms. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has met this first criterion to establish a Table
SIRVA.
2. Onset of Pain
A petitioner alleging a SIRVA claim must also show that he experienced the first
symptom or onset within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)), and that
his pain began within that same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI
criteria)). Respondent argues that Petitioner is unable to meet this requirement because
“[he] did not seek treatment until approximately six weeks post vaccination.” Response at
5.
I find, however, that the totality of the record supports the conclusion that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain most likely began within 48 hours of receiving the November
12, 2018 flu vaccine. Indeed, at his first post-vaccination medical appointment (for this is
not a case with intervening records that rebut Petitioner’s contentions), Petitioner
specifically complained of left shoulder pain “that began after having a flu shot on the 12th
of December.” Ex. 5 at 6. Although Petitioner cited an incorrect date of administration, he
unequivocally related his symptoms to vaccination. Id. Just two days later – at a
December 28, 2018 orthopedic appointment, Petitioner again attributed his symptoms to
vaccination and noted pain with range of motion that began “[i]mmediately . . . and ever
since.” Id. at 9. Furthermore, the affidavits submitted by Petitioner and his witness are
consistent with the medical evidence, and I have found no reason not to deem them
credible otherwise.
Finally, I do not find that Petitioner’s six-week treatment delay undermines his
onset assertions. Indeed, I have found greater delays to not be dispositive of this issue.
See, e.g., Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL
3083140, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl.
329 (2019) (finding a 48-hour onset of shoulder pain despite a nearly six-month delay in
seeking treatment); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-830V, 2019 WL
1040410, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting a delay in seeking treatment
for five-and-a-half months because petitioner underestimated the severity of her shoulder
injury); Knauss v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 16-1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2018) (noting a three-month delay in seeking treatment).
Accordingly, preponderant evidence establishes that the onset of Petitioner’s left
shoulder symptoms occurred within 48 hours of the November 12, 2018 flu vaccination.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 8 of 10
3. Scope of Pain and Limited Range of Motion
The third QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA requires a petitioner’s pain and
reduced range of motion to be “limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine
was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent argues that Petitioner has
not met this criterion because “repeated examinations failed to show reduced range of
motion in [Petitioner’s] left shoulder.” Response at 4.
Although I and my colleagues have previously discussed whether the existence of
limited range of motion (“ROM”) is a requirement of a Table SIRVA injury,3 I am not aware
of any definitive ruling on this issue.4 But as in the Dawson ruling, I need not address the
issue here because I find that the record evidence preponderates (albeit barely) in
Petitioner’s favor on this disputed issue.
While Respondent correctly asserts that Petitioner was noted to have full range of
motion on exam during his two December 2018 medical appointments, it is also true that
the contemporaneous medical records document subjective evidence to the contrary.
Specifically, on December 26, 2018, Petitioner reported that his symptoms included
“DROM [decreased range of motion] and soreness.” Ex. 5 at 5. Likewise, on December
28, 2018, Petitioner reported pain with range of motion. Id. at 9. Additionally, on June 27,
2019 (over seven months post vaccination), Petitioner reported pain with adduction,
external rotation, and extension despite a normal motor exam. See Ex. 6 at 5.
These statements corroborate Petitioner’s written testimony in which he recounts
an inability to reach his left arm over his head in the days following his November 12,
2018 vaccination. See Ex. 8 at 3. Petitioner’s witness also provided an affidavit in which
she avers that “it was nearly impossible for [Petitioner] to lift his arm past 90 degrees.”
Ex. 10 at 2.
3 See Dawson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0278V, 2021 WL 5774655 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 4, 2021) (finding sufficient evidence of limited ROM); Portee v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-
1552V, 2018 WL 5284599 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 14, 2018) (determining limited ROM manifesting
within 48 hours is not required for a Table SIRVA).
4 Limited ROM is mentioned twice in the SIRVA QAI. When defining SIRVA, the QAI indicates that “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.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (emphasis added).
Additionally, the third criterion requires that a petitioner's “[p]ain and reduced range of motion are limited to
the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). As I
discussed in Dawson, despite some language ambiguity, the first instance supports the premise that some
limited ROM is needed to satisfy the Table SIRVA definition. Dawson, 2022 WL 5774655, at *2-3. However,
the third criterion requires only that the reduced ROM be limited to the shoulder in which the vaccination
was administered. Id. at *3.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 9 of 10
The disputed range of motion issue presents a close call. However, the filed
evidence (which includes both medical records and written testimony) preponderates in
favor of the conclusion that Petitioner suffered from reduced range of motion in the days
that followed his November 2018 vaccination, and that these symptoms were limited to
Petitioner’s left shoulder. As with the issue of severity, the degree of ROM issues and the
hardships they imposed in this case on Petitioner appear quite limited – a factor that will
be taken into account in calculating damages.
4. Other Condition or Abnormality
The last QAI criteria for a Table SIRVA states 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 has not contested that Petitioner meets this criterion, and
there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Thus, the record contains preponderant
evidence establishing that there is no other condition or abnormality which would explain
the symptoms of Petitioner’s left shoulder injury.
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Based on the above, I find that Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table
SIRVA and is entitled to a presumption of causation. 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).
The overall record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in his left
shoulder on November 12, 2018 in California. Ex. 8 at 2; 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. Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Additionally, as stated above, I have found that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of
his shoulder injury for more than six months. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)(statutory six-
month requirement).
Thus, based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a
Table SIRVA – albeit a limited and fairly mild case. Additionally, he has satisfied all other
9

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/22/23 Page 10 of 10
requirements for compensation.5 I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in this case.
D. Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence
satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA and the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement
for both Table and non-Table claims. Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
A subsequent order will set further proceedings towards resolving damages (and I
reiterate my earlier points that this case is not one in which a large pain and suffering
award (even approaching $50,000.00) is called for, and therefore Petitioner must factor
in the overall mild nature of the injury in seeking damages).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 Because I have found that Petitioner has demonstrated a Table injury, there is no need to address
Petitioner’s “causation-in-fact” allegation.
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00365-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-14
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/12/2023) regarding 52 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0365V
UNPUBLISHED
DEREK STRAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 12, 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)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 31, 2020, Derek Strand 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 (“flu”) vaccine that was administered
on November 12, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 18, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On April 20, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $35,000.00. Proffer at
1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award.
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-00365-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 4
Id. at 2. 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 $35,000.00 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-00365-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
DEREK STRAND,
Petitioner, No. 20-365V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On September 16, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration. ECF No. 40. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
October 20, 2021, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 43. On
January 18, 2023, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to
compensation.1 ECF No. 44.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$35,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
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 January 18, 2023, entitlement decision.

Case 1:20-vv-00365-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 4
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment of $35,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
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/ Emilie F. Williams
EMILIE F. WILLIAMS
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) 305-0124
Email: emilie.williams@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 20, 2023
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2