VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00494
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00494
Petitioner: Vincent Begay
Filed: 2020-04-23
Decided: 2023-04-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-25
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 12000

AI-assisted case summary:
Vincent Begay filed a petition alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by the influenza vaccine he received on or about October 25, 2018. He claimed the vaccine was administered in the United States and that he experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied that Mr. Begay sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the flu vaccine caused his alleged shoulder injury. After Mr. Begay passed away from an unrelated cause, his wife Dora Begay, as personal representative of his estate, was substituted as petitioner. The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle the case and award compensation. Chief Special Master Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding a lump sum of $12,000.00 to Dora Begay as personal representative of Vincent Begay's estate. This amount represents compensation for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the parties stipulated to the award amount.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00494-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-14
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/12/2021) regarding 20 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0494V
UNPUBLISHED
VINCENT BEGAY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 12, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Requirement Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On April 23, 2020, Vincent Begay 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused in fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received.
Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Fact 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 Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 8
A disputed factual issue has arisen regarding whether Petitioner’s injury meets the
Act’s severity requirement. For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner suffered
the residual effects of his injury for more than six months.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, Mr. Begay filed the affidavit and the medical records
required by the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-8, ECF No. 1; see also Section 11(c) (regarding
the medical records required under the Vaccine Act). Following the June 12, 2020 initial
status conference, Respondent’s counsel filed a status report that in August indicating
that she had identified no outstanding medical records and had identified one factual
issue, the neurologic nature of Petitioner’s injury, which may prevent him from satisfying
the Table definition for SIRVA.3 ECF No. 12. On March 19, 2021, Petitioner forwarded a
demand and supporting documentation to Respondent. ECF No. 17.
On July 9, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation.
ECF No. 19. He argued that Petitioner could not satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity
requirement (id. at 5), and that there is evidence of a potential alternative cause “that
preclude[s] a finding of a Table SIRVA” (id. at 6). Respondent also maintained that
Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to prove actual causation. Id. Indeed, he
asserted that “[a]s a general matter, because SIRVA is an injury defined by administrative
rulemaking, . . . [P]etitioner may not pursue a cause-in-fact SIRVA claim.” Id. at 6 n.1.
II. Issue
I have determined that a factual finding regarding the severity of Petitioner’s injury
is appropriate at this time. At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual
effects of his alleged SIRVA for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory
six-month requirement).
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 Vaccine Act
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 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
3 It is important to note that Petitioner alleged a causation-in-fact claim. Petition at ¶ 9.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 8
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.
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
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.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 4 of 8
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 Section 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. Finding of Fact
I make the following findings after a complete review of the record, including all
medical records, affidavits, and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report:
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine in his right deltoid on October 25, 2018,
while working as a heavy equipment operator at the Peabody mines in
Arizona. Exhibit 1; see, e.g., Exhibit 2 at 13 (indicating Petitioner received
the vaccine at a work clinic). The vaccine was administered at a health fair
conducted through the Kayenta Health Clinic (“Kayenta Clinic”). Exhibit 3 at
6.
• On December 6, 2018, Petitioner sought medical treatment at the Kayenta
Clinic, located in Kayenta, Arizona, complaining of sharp pain and
weakness in his left arm since receiving the flu vaccine. Exhibit 3 at 7. X-
rays were taken, and Petitioner was prescribed NSAIDs.4 Exhibit 3 at 8, 16
(x-ray results).
• Petitioner returned to the Kayenta Clinic one week later to review the x-rays
results. Exhibit 3 at 9. Reporting a slight improvement in his pain, he again
indicated it began after he received the flu vaccine in October. Id. Petitioner
received the Naproxen5 previously prescribed to him, and an MRI was
proposed if he showed no improvement. Exhibit 3 at 9.
• Seen the following week on December 19, 2018, Petitioner again reported
a slight improvement in pain, but added that it was worse at night and
interfered with his sleep. Exhibit 3 at 11. He added that he experienced
weakness when lifting his right arm. Petitioner was diagnosed with right
4 NSAIDs stands for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 422 (16th ed. 2020).
5 Naproxen is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is used in the treatment of pain and inflammation
and conditions such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY
(“DORLAND’S “) at 1232 (32th ed. 2012).
4

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 5 of 8
shoulder pain, nerve impingement, and rotator cuff tendonitis. An MRI was
scheduled with a follow-up orthopedic appointment “if significant pathology
is found on [the] MRI.” Id.
• The next day, Petitioner visited the same day clinic at Fort Defiance Indian
Hospital (“FDIH”), located on the border of Arizona and New Mexico, which
appears to be the state where Petitioner resides. Exhibit 2 at 13; see, e.g.,
Exhibit 8 at 1 (providing Petitioner’s address in New Mexico); Exhibit 2 at
15 (indicating Petitioner lives and works in different locations). Stating that
he had been advised to seek an MRI, Petitioner described weakness and a
lack of arm control after receiving an improperly administered flu vaccine on
October 25 at a clinic held at work. It was noted that he “[d]oesn’t report
pain in the area.” Exhibit 2 at 13. The assessment included a “concern for
soft tissue, parsonage turner syndrome.” Id. at 16.
• The MRI, performed in Flagstaff, Arizona on January 9, 2019, revealed fluid
in the subacromial/subdeltoid bursa, indicative of bursitis; evidence of
osteoarthritis; evidence of a partial thickness rotator cuff tear at the
infraspinatus tendon and associated tendinopathy; and findings indicating a
possible tear at the shoulder labrum. Exhibit 4 at 1-2. During a January 16,
2019 telephone phone call, a physician at the Kayenta Clinic explained the
results of the MRI to Petitioner and provided him with a referral to an
orthopedist. Exhibit 3 at 13.
• On January 23, 2019, Petitioner was seen again at the FDIH same day clinic
for right shoulder pain which he attributed to the flu vaccine he described as
improperly administered on October 25, 2018. Exhibit 2 at 19. Although he
reported no pain at that time, he “state[d] he notices his right shoulder pain
at night.” Id. It was noted that Petitioner “needs ortho to clear him to return
to work.” Id. at 21.
• Petitioner was first seen by an orthopedist at FDIH on February 6, 2019.
Exhibit 2 at 33. At that visit, he reported substantial improvement and no
current pain but pain at night at a level of six out of ten. The orthopedist’s
assessment revealed a painful arc of the right shoulder. Under the section
titled “Plan,” it was indicated that Petitioner could return to work and would
not be pursuing physical therapy as he works out of state. Petitioner
declined a cortisone injection. Id.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 6 of 8
• Petitioner did not seek treatment again until May 13, 2019, when he was
seen by the FDIH orthopedist, complaining of “shoulder pain when he
sleeps” and seeking guidance before being administered a shingles
vaccine. Exhibit 2 at 34. Although he reported no current pain (as he did in
February 2019), the assessment again revealed a painful right shoulder arc.
At this May 13 visit, he indicated he “ha[d] been symptom free for 2 months
but was concerned about the [rotator cuff tear] tear sen [sic] 4 months ago.”
Id. Another MRI was planned. Id.
• When Petitioner returned to the FDIH orthopedist to discuss the results of
the second MRI, performed on July 10, 2019, he reported no current pain
and only right arm weakness in the morning. Exhibit 2 at 36. It was noted
that the second MRI revealed only a small 1.5 mm glenoid labral tear and
some fatty infiltration of [the] teres muscle.” Id. The orthopedist assessed
Petitioner as experiencing “weakness in the am post flu shot” and opined
that “it is remotely possible that there was some neuropathy related to the
attenuated virus.” Id. He added that he “would expect full resolution of sxs
by 1 yr prn.” Id.
In this case, to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement Petitioner must show
that he suffered symptoms of his alleged SIRVA beyond April 25, 2019. The above
medical entries show that at visits both prior to and after this date (February 6 and May
13, 2019, respectively) Petitioner reported a lack of current shoulder pain, but right
shoulder pain when he slept. Exhibit 2 at 33-34. At the February 6, 2019 visit, he rated
this nightly pain at a level of six out of ten. Id. at 33. Additionally, at both visits he exhibited
a painful right shoulder arc upon examination. Id. at 33-34. Thus, while the symptoms he
experienced were clearly mild and sporadic (and may accordingly only support modest
damages), I find Petitioner experienced at least pain at night and pain with movement on
May 13, 2019, more than six months post-vaccination.
In arguing against severity, Respondent emphasizes the approximately three-
month gap between these two visits and Petitioner’s report, on May 13th, that he had
been symptom-free for two months. Rule 4(c) Report at 5. However, Respondent’s
arguments are ultimately not persuasive, for several reasons. First, a delay in treatment
of three months is not unreasonable (especially given the mild and sporadic nature of the
symptoms Petitioner suffered). It is hardly uncommon in SIRVA cases for claimants to
delay treatment, where initially or throughout their injuries, based on the reasonable
assumption that their post-vaccination pain may prove transient.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 7 of 8
Second, the Vaccine Act does not require that a petitioner suffer consistent
symptoms throughout the six-month period post-vaccination, but instead only that a
petitioner suffer the residual effects or complications of the alleged injury for more than
six months after administration of the vaccine. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). In my
experience adjudicating SIRVA claims, many petitioners experience some temporary
relief during the duration of their injuries (for example, from a cortisone injection or
physical therapy) or pain plateaus. Thus, even if Petitioner experienced a two month
cessation of pain, as his statement indicates, such a temporary lack of symptoms would
not preclude Petitioner from meeting the severity requirement.
Additionally, there are medical record entries which provide support for the
proposition that Petitioner may not have been truly symptom free as he stated. In both
February and May 2019, Petitioner reported a lack of pain, despite exhibiting a painful
right shoulder arc. Exhibit 2 at 33-34. Given his propensity to ignore this pain with
movement, Petitioner’s statement could be interpreted as referring only to the nightly pain
he had experienced in February, and was now reporting in May. Regardless of its
accuracy, this statement is not sufficient to dictate a different finding.
Compared to other SIRVA injuries, Petitioner’s right shoulder pain was plainly less
severe. However, the mildness and sporadic nature of Petitioner’s symptoms is a matter
that goes to the ultimate quantum of damages to be paid. The fact that his injury was not
especially acute does not undercut the determination that it nevertheless lingered for long
enough to satisfy severity under The Act.
The overall record in this case shows Petitioner suffered at least nightly pain and
a painful right shoulder arc as late as May 2019. Accordingly, I find there is preponderant
evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA for more
than six months.
V. Symptoms of a Neurologic Nature
Although I have determined there is sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner
suffered symptoms of his alleged SIRVA for more than six months post-vaccination, I
have not yet ruled that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. As Respondent argues and
several of Petitioner’s treating physicians observed, some of the symptoms Petitioner
suffered are indicative of a distinguishable neurologic injury. Rule 4(c) Report at 6; Exhibit
2 at 16, 39; Exhibit 3 at 11. However, the majority of symptoms he reported are those
commonly seen in SIRVAs.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/14/21 Page 8 of 8
Additionally, it is possible that Petitioner suffered simultaneous conditions, related
and unrelated to vaccination. The first right shoulder MRI, performed less than three
months post-vaccination on January 9, 2019, revealed findings consistent with SIRVA,
such as evidence of bursitis, tendinopathy, and a partial thickness rotator cuff tear at the
infraspinatus tendon, as well as evidence of a possible tear at the shoulder labrum6.
Exhibit 4 at 1-2. A second MRI, performed on July 10, 2019, however, showed only the
glenoid labral tear previously seen. Exhibit 2 at 36; see supra note 6. Thereafter,
Petitioner reported no right shoulder pain, only weakness. Exhibit 2 at 36.
Petitioner should consider this additional information and provide Respondent with
a revised demand if needed, to take into account not only the overall mild character of his
SIRVA but the fact that not all of his post-vaccination damages are compensable.
VI. Scheduling Order
In light of my finding regarding the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, the parties
should attempt to informally resolve this case. They shall file a joint status report
regarding their efforts by no later than Tuesday, September 14, 2021. In the status
report, the parties should indicate whether they believe an informal settlement can be
reached and if so, when they believe the case can be informally resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 Labrum is “anatomic nomenclature for an edge, brim, or liplike part or structure. DORLAND’S at 995. Thus,
this tear is located at the interior rim of the shoulder joint.
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00494-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-18
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/16/2023) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 1 of 8
(cid:38)(cid:50)(cid:53)(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:39)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0494V
UNPUBLISHED
DORA BEGAY, personal Chief Special Master Corcoran
representative of ESTATE OF
VINCENT BEGAY, Filed: March 16, 2023
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
v. Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Related to Vaccine Administration
HUMAN SERVICES, (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On April 23, 2020, Vincent Begay filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Mr. Begay alleged that he suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused in fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he
received. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 15. Stipulation, filed at Mar. 16, 2023, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. He further
alleged he received the vaccine within the United States, that he suffered the residual
effects of his injury for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has
filed a civil action or received compensation for his alleged SIRVA injury. Petition at ¶¶
15-16;Stipulationat ¶¶ 3-5. After Mr. Begay passed away from an unrelated cause, Dora
Begay – his wife and personal representative of his estate, was designated as Petitioner
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.
2National 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-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 2 of 8
in this case. ECF Nos. 31-32. “Respondent denies that Mr. Begay sustained a SIRVA
Table injury; and denies that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Begay’s alleged shoulder injury,
any other injury, or his subsequent death.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on March 16, 2023, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the 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 $12,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Dora Begay, as
personal representative of the estate of Vincent Begay. 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-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 3 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
DORA BEGAY, personal )
representative of the Estate of )
VINCENT BEGAY, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 20-494V
) Chief Special Master Brian Corcoran
v. )
)
SECRETARY OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
_________________
Respondent. )
)
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1. Vincent Begay ("Mr. Begay") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine
Program"). Upon his death, his wife Dora Begay ("petitioner"), as personal representative of his
estate, was substituted as petitioner herein. The petition seeks compensation for injuries
allegedly related to Mr. Begay's receipt of the influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is
contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (a).
2. Mr. Begay received a flu vaccine on or about October 25, 2018.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Begay sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table following administration
of the flu vaccine. She further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this condition

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 4 of 8
for more than six months. Petitioner does not assert that Mr. Begay's death was a sequela of his
alleged vaccine injury.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages as a result of Mr. Begay's condition or his death.
6. Respondent denies that Mr. Begay sustained a SIRVA Table injury; and denies that
the flu vaccine caused Mr. Begay's alleged shoulder injury, any other injury, or his subsequent
death.
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 $12,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as legal
representative of the estate of Vincent Begay. This amount represents compensation for
all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(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-2l(a)(l), 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.
10. Petitioner and her attorney represents that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
2

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 5 of 8
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
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.
11. 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.
12. Petitioner represents that she presently is, or within 90 days of the date ofj udgment
will become, duly authorized to serve as the legal representative of Mr. Begay's estate under the
laws of the State of New Mexico. No payments pursuant to this Stipulation shall be made until
petitioner provides the Secretary with documentation establishing petitioner's appointment as
legal representative of Mr. Begay's estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent
jurisdiction to serve as legal representative of the estate of Mr. Begay at the time a payment
pursuant to this Stipulation is to be made, any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties
appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as legal representative of the estate of Mr.
Begay upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in her
individual capacity and as personal representative of Mr. Begay's estate, on her own behalf, and
on behalf of the estate of Mr. Begay, and his 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
3

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 6 of 8
be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 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 Mr.
Begay resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on
October 25, 2018, as alleged by Mr. Begay in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or
about April 23, 2020, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 20-494V.
14. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity 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.
15. 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 items of compensation sought, is not
grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
16. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that Mr. Begay sustained a SIRVA Table injury; or that
the flu vaccine caused any other injury or his death.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 7 of 8
17. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder in her capacity as personal
representative of Mr. Begay's estate, shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
5

Case 1:20-vv-00494-UNJ Document 45 Filed 04/18/23 Page 8 of 8
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
x : : ~
DORA BEGAY
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~~ ,M1c£:Jdw~~ t?~
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
MULLER BRAZIL, LLP Deputy Director
715 Twining Road, Suite 208 Torts Branch
Dresher, PA 19025 Civil Division
(215) 885-1655 U.S. Department of Justice
Email: leigh@mullerbrazil.com P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRET ARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
He nry P• Olgltallysigned by
HenryP.Mcmlllan ·S3
·11an
bY Mcml .53D•te:2023.03.08
16:31:02 -05'00'
CDR GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH CLAUD~
Director, Division of Senior Trial Attorney
Injury Compensation Programs Torts Branch
Health Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice
Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station
and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146
5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B (202) 616-4138
Rockville, MD 20857 claudia.gangi@usdoj.gov
Dated: :3 - I ~ ,.. Z 3
6