VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00404
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00404
Petitioner: Shirley Underwood
Filed: 2020-04-08
Decided: 2023-05-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-09-14
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 48500

AI-assisted case summary:
Shirley Underwood 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 September 14, 2017. She reported soreness in her right arm the day after the vaccination, and by the following day, her shoulder was sore and she could not use her arm. The injury progressed, causing significant pain and limited range of motion, leading to a diagnosis of bursitis and frozen shoulder. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that the onset of pain did not occur within the 48-hour window required for a Table SIRVA claim. However, the Chief Special Master found that the evidence, including contemporaneous emails and later medical records linking the pain to the vaccination, established that the onset of injury occurred within 48 hours. Petitioner was found entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages. The court awarded Shirley Underwood a lump sum of $48,500.00 as compensation for all available damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00404-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-06
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/06/2023) regarding 30 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-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-404V
UNPUBLISHED
SHIRLEY UNDERWOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 6, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Findings of
Fact; Onset; Influenza (Flu);
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLMENT1
On April 8, 2020, Shirley Underwood 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 on
September 14, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters (“SPU”).
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-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 9
After a full review of the evidence, I find it more likely than not that Petitioner
experienced the onset of her injury within 48 hours of her vaccination; and that she is
otherwise entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the case’s initiation and SPU assignment, I encouraged the parties to settle,
but by June 2021 they informed me Respondent intended to defend this claim and that
Petitioner would proceed filing a Motion for a Ruling on the Record. ECF No. 21; ECF No.
24. I therefore set deadlines for the filing of briefs addressing Petitioner’s to
compensation. ECF No. 25.
On August 26, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on Record. ECF No. 27.
On November 2, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Response to
Petitioner’s Motion, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied under the
terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 29. Specifically, Respondent argued that the evidence
preponderated against a finding that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred
within 48 hours of her vaccination as required to establish an on-Table SIRVA claim. Id.
at 5-7. A Reply brief was not filed. 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
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)).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 9
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;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
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-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 9
(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 the entire record as it stands, but limit my discussion below to the
evidence most relevant to my determination of whether Petitioner experienced the first
post-vaccination symptom or manifestation of onset (specifically pain) occurred within 48
hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (seasonal influenza vaccines);
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
A. Medical Records and Email Evidence
• On September 14, 2017, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right shoulder from
a Walmart Pharmacy. Ex. 1 at 6.
• On September 15, 2017 (one day after her vaccination), Petitioner sent an email
message to her daughter, Robin Underwood Doty, stating (in the subject line) “got
my flu shot yesterday arm a little sore.” Ex. 10.4
• On September 28, 2017, Petitioner was seen at the office of her primary care
provider, Stephen O. Woodruff, MD, for a urinary tract infection (“UTI”). Ex. 2 at
64. Petitioner was evaluated by Joy Escue, ARPN. Id. In addition to complaints of
urinary frequency, Petitioner also reported swelling in her left foot and ankle that
subsided with rest, but returned in the morning. Id. Finally, the record notes that
“[t]wo weeks ago she received the flu shot and reports that she has been feeling
tired and achy since that time. She reports that she has stayed in bed for the past
2 weeks most of the time.” Id. Petitioner was assessed with urinary frequency, UTI
symptoms, long-term use of anticoagulant, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with
4 Petitioner’s daughter explains in an email to counsel dated May 7, 2021, that there was no text in the body
of the September 2017 email from her mother, and that she and her mother communicate using just the
subject line in an email “like text messaging.” Ex. 10. Petitioner confirmed this practice in a sworn
declaration dated August 23, 2021. Ex. 11. Petitioner also submitted other examples of email
communications with her daughter where they sent messages by email using only the subject line and no
text in the email body. Ex. 12.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 9
peripheral neuropathy. Id. at 67. No complaints specific to Petitioner’s right
shoulder were documented.
• On November 19, 2017, Petitioner messaged Dr. Woodruff requesting a refill of a
muscle relaxant she was given when she “had a kidney stone” noting “she had a
really tight muscle in [her] back.” Ex. 5 at 2.
• Petitioner engaged in email correspondence with her daughter between December
2 and 5, 2017. Ex. 7. The emails document that her daughter was concerned about
her mother’s “arm,” suggested she be seen by urgent care, as well as ice her arm
to bring down the inflammation. Ex. 7 at 1-2, 4, 6. Petitioner’s daughter also
speculated her arm “is a combo of the bed and computer,” and suggested she
needed “range of motion physical therapy.” Id. at 6. Petitioner reported to her
daughter that “where I got the shot still scabs up ever[y] week [or] so.” Id.
• Petitioner was seen by Dr. Woodruff on January 15, 2018 and reported right
shoulder pain, among other things. Ex. 2 at 68. Dr. Woodruff’s assessment
included “[b]ursitis in [r]ight shoulder[,] [s]evere[,] [b]ut does not want shot today.”
Id. at 71. The onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain is not described, or otherwise
documented, in the record.
• On February 28, 2018, Petitioner presented again to Dr. Woodruff “[w]ith frozen
[r]ight shoulder [a]fter Flu shot.” Ex. 2 at 73. It was noted that Petitioner had
“significant pain” in the right shoulder and was having trouble sleeping. Id. Dr.
Woodruff administered a steroid injection into Petitioner’s right shoulder and
prescribed her Percocet to treat her pain. Id. at 76. Petitioner was assessed with
frozen right shoulder and acute right shoulder bursitis. Id.
• On March 17, 2018, Petitioner messaged Dr. Woodruff about her arm. Ex. 5 at 1.
She reported that “[s]ince I got my flu shot in September (6 months ago) it’s gotten
worse. At first it was just painful at the top of my arm and now I have extreme pain
at times in my elbow, my hand, and in various fingers.” She further reports she
could “only move [her] arm from the elbow down.” Id.
• On April 18, 2018, Petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation. The
evaluation indicates that Petitioner presented with “major [complaints of] R[ight]
shoulder/arm pain that started in September after getting a shot in her R[ight] arm.
P[atien]t states that her shoulder got sore after the shot and it has been hurting
since then.” Ex. 4 at 7.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 6 of 9
B. Declarations
Petitioner filed both a sworn and notarized affidavit, as well as a sworn declaration,
in support of her claim. Ex 8; Ex. 11.
Petitioner states that she experienced “very little pain with the vaccination,” but
“[l]ater that day, my right shoulder was sore” and she emailed her daughter the following
day regarding her “flu shot and arm pain.” Ex. 8 ¶ 3. Petitioner states that “[w]ithin two
days, my arm hurt a lot and I couldn’t use it.” Id. Petitioner indicates that she took muscle
relaxants left over from her from a prior kidney stone treatment which helped and that
sent a message to her doctor requesting a refill when the prescription ran out. Id. ¶ 4.
Petitioner states that she tried to self-treat her shoulder pain using the muscle relaxants,
Tylenol, Bengay, and a heating pad. Id. Petitioner notes her pain became so bad she had
to see a doctor, hire a housekeeper, and engaged in email correspondence with daughter
regarding her “ongoing right arm/shoulder symptoms.” Id.
Petitioner states that she did report her right shoulder pain to Dr. Woodruff at her
September 28, 2017 appointment and that she does not know why it is not documented
in the medical record. Id. ¶ 5. She further indicates that he offered her a cortisone shot at
that appointment and she declined it. Id. She states she next reported her shoulder pain
to Dr. Woodruff on January 15, 2018, as documented in the record, but states that she
also told the doctor that she had not been able to use her arm since her flu vaccination.
Id. ¶ 6. Petitioner further asserts she reported her shoulder pain again at her January 17,
2018 appointment (for a mammogram) but that it is also not documented in the record.
Id. ¶ 7.
IV. Findings of Fact
The only Table requirement for SIRVA that Respondent contests is whether
Petitioner’s first post-vaccination symptom or manifestation of onset (specifically pain)
occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and
Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (seasonal
influenza vaccines); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI);
ECF No. 29 at 5-7. Based upon a review of the entire record, and for the reasons set forth
below, I find that it more likely than not was.
In this case, the medical record pertaining to the visit most contemporaneous to
Petitioner’s vaccination – from a visit to her PCP’s office only two weeks later – omits
specific mention of shoulder pain (although it does document achiness following her
vaccination). Ex. 2 at 64-67. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s recollection in her
affidavit that she did report shoulder pain to Dr. Woodruff at this time is erroneous, and
6

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 7 of 9
that Petitioner likely conflated the earlier appointment with her January 15, 2018
appointment with Dr. Woodruff, as Petitioner was not evaluated by Dr. Woodruff on
September 28, 2017, but was seen instead by a nurse at his practice, Joy Escue. ECF
No. 29 at 6. Additionally, Respondent points out that Petitioner’s November 19, 2017
message to Dr. Woodruff, requesting a refill of a muscle relaxant and noting “she had a
really tight muscle in [her] back,” contains no mention of shoulder pain, despite Petitioner
asserting in her affidavit she was taking the muscle relaxants to treat her shoulder. Ex. 5
at 2.
Respondent reasonably questions the accuracy of Petitioner’s recollection in her
affidavit, and I cannot conclude that Petitioner reported pain per se at the September 28th
doctor’s visit. However, that does not preclude a finding that Petitioner suffered the onset
of shoulder pain within 48 hours of her vaccination, given the other evidence in the record.
As a preliminary matter, the medical record does document that Petitioner reported
feeling achy at the September 28th treatment encounter. It is reasonable to conclude that
Petitioner either did not detail the nature of her achiness (failed to explicitly report shoulder
pain), or it was not documented, given that at that time Petitioner was experiencing
symptoms of a UTI – an acute medical condition – that would have been the primary focus
of the visit.
I have previously observed, “the Vaccine Act clearly does not require that
symptoms be recorded within a specific timeframe to be preponderantly established.
Rather, it requires only that onset occurs in the relevant timeframe.” Niemi v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1535V, 2021 WL 4146940, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 10, 2021)
(citing Section 13) (emphasis in original). Neither does the Act require that the medical
records document an exact date that the onset of a petitioner’s shoulder pain began. A
special master may thus 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).
In this case, Petitioner’s allegation that her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours
of her vaccination is supported by some contemporaneous treatment records close-in-
time to the vaccination – even if not with the specificity Respondent would prefer. And
later records establish that Petitioner reported her shoulder pain to her PCP on January
15, 2018 (albeit four months after her vaccination). Ex. 2 at 68-73. Although that record
omits any description for the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain, later records link her
shoulder pain to her September 14, 2017 vaccination. On February 28, 2018, Petitioner
reporting shoulder pain again to her PCP, who specified she presented “[w]ith frozen
Right shoulder [a]fter Flu shot.” Ex. 2 at 73. On March 17, 2018, Petitioner emailed her
7

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 8 of 9
PCP complaining that her shoulder pain persisted and was spreading, noting that “[s]ince
I got my flu shot in September (6 months ago) it’s gotten worse.” Ex. 5 at 1. Again, at her
initial physical therapy evaluation, the medical record documents “shoulder/arm pain that
started in September after getting a shot in her R[ight] arm.” Ex. 4 at 7. “P[atien]t states
that her shoulder got sore after [her] shot and it has been hurting since then.” Id.
In addition, the contemporaneous email correspondence between Petitioner and
her daughter are consistent with her allegations about onset. Petitioner sent her daughter
an email the day following her vaccination indicating that her arm was a little sore. Ex. 10.
This statement is consistent with Petitioner’s later message to Dr. Woodruff that her arm
had been sore since her vaccination, but had gotten worse. Ex. 5 at 1. Additionally,
Petitioner’s email correspondence with her daughter in December 2017 demonstrates
that Petitioner and her daughter had ongoing concerns in regard to her arm pain. Ex. 7.
Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner has established the onset of
her injury within 48 hours of her vaccination. Admittedly, this finding represents a close
call. I also note that Petitioner’s delay in seeking medical treatment specific to her
shoulder pain demonstrates that she was able to tolerate the pain initially and is indicative
of a less severe SIRVA – a factor I will consider in awarding damages for pain and
suffering in this case.
V. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
Based on the above, and my review of the record as a whole, Petitioner has
established all requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B),
(c)(10). 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. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for
entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 9 of 9
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
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00404-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-22
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/21/2023) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-404V
UNPUBLISHED
SHIRLEY UNDERWOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 21, 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)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 8, 2020, Shirley Underwood 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 – shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on September 14, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 6, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On April 19, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $48,500.00. Proffer at
1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
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-00404-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 4
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 $48,500.00 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-00404-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
SHIRLEY UNDERWOOD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 20-404V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) (ECF)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On August 26, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that she has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on
September 14, 2017. ECF No. 27. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
November 2, 2021, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 29. On
January 6, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement concluding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.1 ECF No. 30.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$48,500.00, 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 6, 2023 entitlement decision.

Case 1:20-vv-00404-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/22/23 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 $48,500.00, 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
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Claudia B. Gangi
CLAUDIA B. GANGI
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 616-4138
Email: claudia.gangi@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 19, 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