VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00474
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00474
Petitioner: Adrianne Hick
Filed: 2020-04-21
Decided: 2023-01-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-18
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 8500

AI-assisted case summary:
Adrianne Hick filed a petition for vaccine compensation on April 21, 2020, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination received on October 18, 2018. She further alleged that the residual effects of this injury lasted for more than six months. Respondent denied that Ms. Hick sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denied that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation on December 29, 2022, agreeing to settle the case and award compensation. The decision adopts this stipulation, awarding Ms. Hick a lump sum of $8,500.00 as compensation for all items of damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. This amount represents a compromise of the parties' respective positions on liability and damages. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the parties agreed to resolve the matter through this stipulation.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00474-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-24
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/23/2022) regarding 27 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0474V
UNPUBLISHED
ADRIANNE HICK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 23, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Findings of Fact; Site; Onset;
Influenza (Flu); Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA); Table Claim Dismissal.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On April 21, 2020, Adrianne Hick filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on
October 18, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
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-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 10
For the reasons discussed below, I find that although there is preponderant
evidence that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered to her left arm, Petitioner’s Table
SIRVA claim must be dismissed because the evidentiary record does not support the
conclusion that the requisite onset of her pain occurred within 48 hours following
administration of the flu vaccine. This leaves a possibly-meritorious causation-in-fact
claim to be adjudicated.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the materials filed in connection with the Petition were deemed acceptable
for case activation, the matter was assigned to the SPU in May 2020. On June 3, 2021,
after completing formal medical review, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contending
that Petitioner had not established that (a) Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered to
her left arm, and (b) onset of her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, as
required for a Table SIRVA. ECF No. 20. Rather, Respondent argued that Petitioner “has
repeatedly, and consistently, reported that her symptoms began approximately two weeks
after vaccination.” Id. at 5.
After a review of the records, I determined that a hearing to resolve the disputed
issues would be unnecessary. See ECF No. 22. I then directed the parties to file briefs
and any other evidence in support of their positions. Id. Petitioner filed a Motion for Fact
Ruling (“Mot.”) on October 29, 2021, to which Respondent filed a response (“Op.”) on
November 12, 2021. ECF No. 24, 25. Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on December 1,
2021. ECF No. 26. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issues
The following issues are contested: (1) whether Petitioner received the vaccination
alleged as causal in her left arm; and (2) whether Petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset after vaccine administration (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(c)(10)(ii)-(iii) (required onset for pain listed
in the QAI; pain and reduced range of motion limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
2

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 10
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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
3

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 4 of 10
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such 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.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Site of Vaccination
Based on a review of the entire record, including all medical records and affidavits,
the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, the arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for
Fact Ruling, and the arguments in the response thereto, I find that Petitioner’s October
18, 2018 flu vaccine was more likely than not administered in her left arm, as she
contends. The following points are particularly relevant to that finding:
• Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records reveal a history of asthma and
allergies, but no injuries, inflammation, or dysfunction in either shoulder or
arm. Ex. 3 at 4.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine at the offices of her union, Actor’s Equity
Association, in New York, New York, on October 18, 2018. Ex.1 at 1. The
vaccine record states that “there is no documentation available to confirm
to which arm the vaccination was given.” Id.
• Petitioner avers that she was asked which arm was her dominant arm prior
to the vaccination. Ex. 8 at ¶3; Ex. 12 at ¶1. Petitioner states that she
“answered that she was right-handed, and her left side was prepared for the
injection.” Ex. 8 at ¶3. She states that she then received the vaccination in
her left arm. Ex. 12 at ¶1.
• Petitioner’s husband, Andrew George Foote, states that he spoke to Ms.
Hick by phone on the day of her vaccination and that she “explained that
4

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 5 of 10
when the time came for her injection, she began to remove her cardigan
sweater so as to better expose her left (non-dominate) [sic] shoulder.” Ex.
13 at ¶5. He further recalled that Petitioner told him that “she was very
relieved that the injection was in her left arm since she was on her way to
the office and would probably be called upon to do some of the minor
physical chores that she performs when she works at her part time office
job.” Id.
• Petitioner’s co-worker, Lauren Dopkin, states that Petitioner returned to the
office where they worked together on October 18, 2018 after her flu shot.
Ex. 14 at ¶2. She recalled that Petitioner “was complaining of the soreness
in her left shoulder from the shot, and how it caused her left arm to ache.”
Id.
• In the filed records after October 18, 2018, Petitioner consistently reported
pain in her left shoulder to her chiropractor, to three orthopedists, and to her
physical therapist. See Ex. 1 at 1-14; Ex. 4 at 4-13; Ex. 5 at 4-10; Ex. 6 at
4-7; Ex. 11 at 8. Petitioner received testing and treatment to her left
shoulder, including xrays and an MRI, cortisone injections, and physical
therapy. Id.
• The records do not contain any complaints of nor treatment for right
shoulder pain.
The entirety of the record, as reviewed above, preponderantly supports the
conclusion that Petitioner more likely than not received the October 18, 2018 flu vaccine
in her left arm.
Ms. Hick’s vaccine administration record is admittedly problematic, since it is silent
as to the situs of administration. Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner’s affidavit and supplemental affidavit,
however, provide additional details about the circumstances of administration that provide
support for her claim that she received the vaccination in her left arm. As Petitioner has
explained, she was asked to identify her dominant arm prior to vaccination. Ex. 8 at ¶3.
Because her dominant arm is her right, Petitioner received the vaccine in her left arm. Ex.
12 at ¶1. Petitioner’s husband recalled that Ms. Hick explained to him on the day of her
vaccination that she received the vaccine in her left (non-dominant) arm and experienced
immediate pain. Ex. 13 at ¶5. Petitioner’s co-worker, Lauren Dopkin, worked with her on
the afternoon of her vaccination and recalled Petitioner complaining of soreness in her
left arm. Ex. 14 at ¶2.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 6 of 10
Because the medical record is silent on the issue of site of vaccination, this is not
a case where a testimonial assertion on the disputed fact is contradicted. While the record
does not prove, by itself, that Petitioner received the vaccine in her left arm, it does not
negate that conclusion either. And it is well-settled that even though “oral testimony in
conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight,” that
testimony can be credited where it provides detail that the record omits. Kirby, 997 F.3d
at 1383 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner’s statements about the circumstances of
vaccination do not conflict with the vaccine administration record, but provide detail that
was not recorded at the time of the vaccine or for which documentary evidence cannot
be obtained.
There are other reasons to conclude as I do on this question. Petitioner’s medical
records show that she had no history of any pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in either
shoulder or arm. She received treatment only to her left shoulder, including physical
examinations, xrays, cortisone injection, and physical therapy. Ex. 2, 4-6. There is no
indication in the record of any other possible cause of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain.
Overall, Petitioner’s own assertions are sufficiently corroborated by the medical
record to accept her contention of vaccine situs. At worst, this is a “close-call,” but in such
cases Program case law counsels deciding the matter in a petitioner’s favor. Roberts v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Aug.
29, 2013). Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that the vaccine alleged as causal in
this case was administered to Petitioner in the left shoulder/arm on October 18, 2018.
B. Onset
I have fully reviewed the evidence pertaining to the onset question, including all
medical records, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, and the parties’ briefs. I find the
following facts most relevant:
• Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records reveal a history of asthma and
allergies, but no injuries, inflammation, or dysfunction in either shoulder or
arm. Ex. 3 at 4.
• Petitioner received a flu vaccine at the offices of her union, Actor’s Equity
Association, in New York, New York, on October 18, 2018. Ex.1 at 1. (As
noted above, I have ruled that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered to
her left arm).
6

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 7 of 10
• Petitioner recalls that the vaccination “was very painful” and “as [she] went
through the day, [she] could barely use [her] arm.” Ex. 8 at ¶3-4. She stated
that “the initial injection hurt so much and felt like it was very high up onto
my shoulder, not in my deltoid.” Ex. 12 at ¶3. She described “lasting pain,
which started immediately after being injected. [She] was experiencing pain
and stiffness, and [she] could no longer lift, or hold things with [her] left side.”
Id. at ¶4. She described sleeping the night of her vaccination as
“impossible.” Id.
• Petitioner’s husband, Andrew George Foote, avers that Petitioner called
him after her flu vaccination and “explained that the injection site was much
more ‘tender’ and ‘painful’ than in previously years.” Ex. 13 at ¶2.
• Petitioner’s co-worker, Lauren Dopkin, recalls that Petitioner returned to the
office where they both worked after her vaccination. Ex. 14 at ¶2. She stated
that Petitioner complained of “soreness in her left shoulder from her shot”
and “it caused her left arm to ache.” Id. She noted that “things like lifting
boxes overhead, reaching out to retrieve something, and lifting, all seemed
to be painful and difficult.” Id.
• On November 8, 2018, 21 days after her vaccination, Petitioner visited her
chiropractor, Dr. Guy Guerriero, complaining of left shoulder pain. Ex. 11 at
8. But Dr. Guerriero’s records do not memorialize a date of onset, nor any
cause attributed by Petitioner.
• On November 13, 2018, 26 days after her vaccination, Petitioner presented
to orthopedist, Dr. Mohnish Ramani, complaining of left shoulder pain
present for “1 ½ weeks.” Ex. 6 at 4. Dr. Ramani noted “Onset date:
11/3/2018” and that Petitioner “indicates that she possibly unknowingly
stressed the left arm.” Id. On the “New Patient Medical History Form” filled
out by Petitioner on the day of her appointment, Ms. Hicks noted the onset
date of her symptoms as 11/3/2018. Id. at 7.
• On November 21, 2018, 34 days after her vaccination, Petitioner presented
to a second orthopedist, Dr. Dennis Nutini, for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 5
at 9. Dr. Nutini recorded that Petitioner “reports that three weeks ago, she
started feeling pain in the left shoulder three days after a shoulder workout.”
Id.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 8 of 10
• Upon starting physical therapy on December 7, 2018, Petitioner reported
“that around the date of 11/3/2018 she started to notice some L shoulder
discomfort w/o any MOI.” Ex. 2 at 4. The physical therapist, Dr. Steven
Ferro, recorded that Petitioner “notes that the pain started after reaching
across her body and has continues [sic] to become more pronounced.” Id.
• At her physical therapy treatment on December 11, 2018, Dr. Ferro noted
that Petitioner “did get a flu shot a few weeks prior to her symptoms
beginning and is curious if this could have contributed to her current
complaint.” Ex. 2 at 9.
• On March 26, 2019, Petitioner presented to a third orthopedist, Dr. Johnny
Arnouk, complaining of “a dull ache to her left shoulder for the past 5
months. She states that her symptoms started shortly after receiving a flu
shot.” Ex. 4 at 11.
I acknowledge that the standard applied to resolving onset for an alleged Table
SIRVA is liberal, and will often permit a determination in a petitioner’s favor, especially in
the absence of fairly contemporaneous and direct statements within the petitioner’s
medical records to the contrary. However, not every case can be so preponderantly
established. Ultimately, the resolution of such fact issues involves weighing different items
of evidence against the overall record.
Here, Petitioner’s onset claims are offset against a record created very near-in-
time to vaccination, in which Petitioner consistently reported the onset of her left shoulder
pain as occurring approximately two weeks after her vaccination. Although Petitioner, her
husband, and her co-worker have submitted affidavits supporting immediate onset of
shoulder pain, the first three post-vaccination records (from the November 13, 2018 visit
with Dr. Ramani; the November 21, 2018 visit with Dr. Nutini; and the December 7, 2018
physical therapy evaluation) specifically refute such contentions, placing onset instead
during the period 13-16 days post vaccination. Ex. 2 at 4; Ex. 5 at 9; Ex. 6 at 4, Ex. 8, 12-
14. Petitioner first linked her left shoulder pain to her flu shot at the time of her second
physical therapy appointment on December 11, 2018 – but even then she stated that her
pain began a few weeks after the vaccination. Ex. 2 at 9. These records, all created within
the first two months after vaccination, consistently place onset of Petitioner’s shoulder
pain outside of the 48 hours required to establish a Table SIRVA.
Petitioner argues that the three records noted above are “inconsistent and
deserving of little evidentiary weight” because they are “internally inconsistent,” in that
they each provide different onset dates. Repl. at 4, 8. Instead, she maintains I should give
8

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 9 of 10
greater weight to the affidavits submitted by Petitioner, her husband, and Lauren Dopkin,
a co-worker, all of which place onset on the day of vaccination, plus the record of her visit
to Dr. Anouk on March 26, 2019 (just over five months after her vaccination), where she
mentioned that her shoulder pain began “shortly after her flu shot.” Repl. at 8; Ex. 4 at 11.
However, in so maintaining Petitioner seems to contend that medical records must be
identical to be deemed consistent. In fact, the three records all place onset of Petitioner’s
pain between October 31, 2018 and November 3, 2018.3 Ex. Ex. 2 at 4; Ex. 5 at 9; Ex. 6
at 4. Although not identical, the three records clearly place onset of Petitioner’s pain
significantly after the 48-hour period after her vaccination which ended after October 20,
2018. Ex. 1 at 1. They are sufficiently consistent to be given greater weight than after-
the-fact witness testimony,4 even if they themselves do not establish a specific date of
onset.
Further, the affidavit testimony provided directly contradicts the facts recorded in
the contemporaneous medical records. Petitioner stated that she “had lasting pain, which
started immediately after being injected” and noted that “sleeping that first night . . . was
impossible.” Ex. 12 at ¶4. This statement cannot be reconciled with the contemporaneous
records. On her intake form for her November 13, 2018 appointment with Dr. Ramani,
Petitioner herself wrote that her symptoms began “1 ½ weeks” prior or on “11/3/2018.”
Ex. 6 at 4. At her November 21, 2021 appointment with Dr. Nutini, Petitioner reported that
her pain began three weeks prior after a shoulder workout. Ex. 5 at 9.
There are situations in which compelling testimony may be more persuasive than
written records, such as where records are deemed to be incomplete or inaccurate.
Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006) (“like any norm
based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute
and must yield where the factual predicates for its application are weak or lacking”);
Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005) (“[w]ritten records which are, themselves, inconsistent,
3 The record of November 13, 2018, notes both “1 ½ weeks” prior to the appointment, which would have
been 10 or 11 days prior (November 2 or 3), and November 3, 2018 specifically. Ex. 6 at 4. The record of
November 21, 2018 notes “three weeks,” which would have been around October 31, 2018. Ex. 5 at 9.
4 While such after-the-fact statements can be deemed persuasive (especially to the extent they do not
contradict prior record statements), they inherently are somewhat less probative than contemporaneous
evidence. Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-685 V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013), vacated on other grounds, Sanchez by & through Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 2019-1753, 2020 WL 1685554 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) (presumption that
contemporaneous records are usually more probative than after-the-fact witness statements “is based on
the linked propositions that (i) sick people visit medical professionals; (ii) sick people honestly report their
health problems to those professionals; and (iii) medical professionals record what they are told or observe
when examining their patients in as accurate a manner as possible, so that they are aware of enough
relevant facts to make appropriate treatment decisions”).
9

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 28 Filed 06/24/22 Page 10 of 10
should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent”) (quoting
Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam,
968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). But not every SIRVA claim can be so preponderantly
established, and certainly not where the sequential and contemporaneous record does
not lend support to the Petitioner’s allegations.
Petitioner argues that she has provided “a credible explanation as to why she was
unable to list the date of onset with specificity during her early treatment visits – she “had
no idea that her October 18, 2018, flu vaccine could be the root of her lingering pain.”
Repl. at 5. She argues that she “stopped using her left arm due to the pain” which helped
for a while, but then the pain returned, and that Petitioner reported the date the pain
returned as the onset date to her doctors, rather than the date of her vaccination. Id.
Petitioner also notes that she believed her pain would go away with time (and that “people
kept telling [her] that flu shots could hurt for a while),” as many petitioners believe. Ex. 12
at ¶5. However, as Respondent notes, “not knowing the cause of one’s pain, or believing
that one’s pain will eventually go away on its own, does not translate into a lack of
awareness of when that pain started.” Op. at 5. Further, even when Petitioner first linked
her pain to her flu shot, she continued to report that the pain began “a few weeks” after
her vaccination. Ex. 2 at 9.
Accordingly, I find Petitioner has not preponderantly established that onset of her
pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination – meaning that she cannot proceed in this
action with a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner has, however, a potential causation-in-fact
injury claim (since the record does at least support the conclusion that within two weeks
of vaccination she felt shoulder pain). I urge the parties to make one final brief attempt at
settlement before transferring the case.
V. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is dismissed, for the reasons set forth above.
Petitioner shall file a joint status report addressing her conveyance of a revised
settlement demand for an off-Table claim, and the parties’ efforts towards informal
resolution, by no later than Friday, July 1, 2022. If the parties do not report progress
in their efforts, the matter will likely be transferred out of the SPU.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00474-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-30
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/29/2022) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0474V
UNPUBLISHED
ADRIANNE HICK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 29, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On April 21, 2020, Adrianne Hick filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on October
18, 2018. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at December 29, 2022, ¶¶ 2. 4. Petitioner further
alleges that she suffered from the residual effects of her vaccine injury for more than six
months. Petition at ¶9; Stipulation at ¶4. Respondent denies “that Petitioner sustained a
SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury,
or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related
injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on December 29, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 7
stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set
forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $8,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STA TES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ADRIANNE HICK,
Petitioner, No. 20-474V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
V. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
I. Adrianne Hick ("petitioner"), filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l Oto 34 (the "Vaccine
Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt
of an influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the
"Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 18, 2018.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
("SIRVA") following receipt of the flu vaccine within the time period set forth in the Table. She
further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six
months.

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 7
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages on her behalf as a result of her alleged injury.
6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the
vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her
current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues between them shall be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent with
the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$8,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-I 5( a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment on entitlement in this case, and after
petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42
U. S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)( I), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before
the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this
petition.
l 0. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l5(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
2

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 5 of 7
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
§ 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
1 I. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to
paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject
to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
I 2. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award
for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursable expenses, the money provided
pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a
strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-l 5(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in her
individual capacity, and on behalf of her heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I0 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 18, 2018, as
alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about April 21, 2020, in the United
3

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 6 of 7
States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 20-474V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
I 5. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete confonnity with the terms
of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or
any other injury or her current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the
Vaccine Injury Table.
I 8. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4

Case 1:20-vv-00474-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/30/23 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~~
~~\,(~ ~
HCA THER L. PEARLMAN
Law Offices of Leah Durant. PLLC Deputy Director
1717 K Street NW. Suite 900 Torts Branch
Washington, D.C. 20006 Civil Di,·ision
('.~02) 775-9~00 U.S. Department of Justice
Emai I: Ldurant@durantllc.com P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AliTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRET ARY OF HEALT H RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
George R. Grimes
Olgitallyslgned byGeorgeR. ~~u.:o~
Grlmes-S14
-S1 4 Oate: 2022. I 2.12 I S:20: I 7 -05'00' b-t ¢k~-v\LP~
zo~
CDR GEORGE REED GRlMES. MD. MPH R. WADE
Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney
Compensation Programs Torts Branch
Health Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and Services L'. S. Department of Justice
Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Renjamin Franklin
and Human Services Washington. DC 20044-0146
5600 Fishers Lane. 08N 146B (202) 616-4118
Rockville, MD 20857 Email: zoe.w aderci,usdoj.gov
Dated: ri-J'iJ:1/U>?..:l._
5