VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00825
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00825
Petitioner: Kimberly Reser
Filed: 2020-07-08
Decided: 2023-04-28
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-05-20
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 68430

AI-assisted case summary:
Kimberly Reser filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a Tdap vaccination she received on May 20, 2019. She further alleged that her shoulder injury lasted longer than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not contest that Ms. Reser was entitled to compensation. In a report filed on March 13, 2023, the respondent stated that, in light of the medical evidence and a prior finding of fact, the Department of Justice concluded that Ms. Reser suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that the residual effects lasted longer than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Ms. Reser entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 27, 2023, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, indicating that Ms. Reser should be awarded $68,430.72. This amount represented $66,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,430.72 for past unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Reser agreed with the proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Ms. Reser a lump sum payment of $68,430.72.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00825-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-16
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/09/2023 ) regarding 41 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0825V
UNPUBLISHED
KIMBERLY RESER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 9, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset; Tetanus
HUMAN SERVICES, Diphtheria Acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On July 8, 2020, Kimberly Reser 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”) from a Tdap vaccine she received on May 20, 2019. Petition at
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
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-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
Beginning in September 2021, the parties engaged in settlement discussions,
attempting to reach an agreement regarding Petitioner’s claim. See ECF No. 27. On
March 23, 2022, the parties reached an impasse in their discussions. ECF No. 35.
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on June 1, 2022 arguing that Petitioner has not
established entitlement to compensation because “the evidence in this case does not
establish an onset of pain in Petitioner’s left shoulder within forty-eight hours of her receipt
of the Tdap vaccine on May 20, 2019.” Rule 4(c) Report at 6.
On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record seeking a
fact ruling on the issue of onset. ECF No. 38. On September 19, 2022, Respondent filed
a response to the motion (“Resp.”). ECF No. 40. Therefore, the issue of onset is ripe for
a fact ruling.
II. Issue
At issue is 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) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
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). The Federal Circuit has said that
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
2

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 8
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).
The Federal Circuit recently stressed, however, that records enjoy no automatic
presumption of accuracy, despite their “trustworthy” evidentiary character. Kirby v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Indeed, “medical
records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998); see also Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475 at *19 (“written records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”).
The Court has 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).
Thus, 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.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare not only the medical
records, testimony, but also 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
3

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 4 of 8
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). And
although later oral testimony that conflicts with medical records is less reliable as a
general matter, it is appropriate for a special master to credit a petitioner’s lay testimony
where is does not conflict with the contemporaneous records. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1382-
84.
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the following findings after a complete review of the record, including all
medical records and affidavits, the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report, the
arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, and the arguments in
Respondent’s response thereto. I find the following points to be particularly relevant:
• Petitioner’s pre-vaccination records reveal depression, type II diabetes,
hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. See Ex. 11 at 4, 25.
• Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left arm at a Walmart pharmacy
in Clayton, Ohio, on May 20, 2019. Ex.1 at 6.
• Petitioner recalls that the shot was not immediately painful, but “started to
hurt” in the time it took for her to walk out of the pharmacy to her car. Ex. 10
at ¶3. By bedtime that day, she required pain medication, and by the next
morning, her shoulder was swollen, “red, hot to touch, and very sore from
the shoulder to the bicep area.” Id. at ¶4.
• At the time of her vaccination, Petitioner was employed as a housekeeper
for a doctor - Katherine Clark, D.O. Ex. 10 at ¶5; Ex. 14 at ¶2. Because
Petitioner was uninsured, Dr. Clark provided some medical care for her,
such as prescribing medication for her diabetes, hypertension, and
hyperlipidemia. Ex. 14 at ¶2. Petitioner’s prescription records reveal
medications prescribed by Dr. Clark in 2019. Ex. 12 at 12.
• Petitioner recalled asking Dr. Clark about her shoulder symptoms the
morning after her vaccination. Id. She recalled Dr. Clark telling her that it
would take about a week to resolve. Ex. 10 at ¶5. While Dr. Clark did not
specifically recall a conversation the day of vaccination, she stated that she
“was aware that [Petitioner] had a lot of shoulder pain since the vaccination.”
Ex. 14 at ¶3. She did recall that Petitioner had “pain and redness of her
shoulder.” Id.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 5 of 8
• Petitioner recalled seeking help from Dr. Clark again a week after her
vaccination. Ex. 10 at ¶6. Although the swelling and redness had resolved,
Petitioner continued to have pain in her shoulder and couldn’t lift her arm to
wash her hair, get dressed, or reach things. Id. She reported difficulty
sleeping on her left side and using Advil for pain. Id. Petitioner recalled Dr.
Clark advising her to use Tylenol for pain, instead of Advil, and to rest her
arm in hopes that the pain would resolve. Id. Petitioner noted that she
“started to use her right arm for just about everything.” Id. Dr. Clark recalled
that Petitioner told her that she had “decreased using her left arm for
housekeeping and childcare.” Ex. 14 at ¶4.
• Petitioner recalled consulting Dr. Clark again in July 2019, two months after
her vaccination. Ex. 10 at ¶7. Although Petitioner remembered Dr. Clark
doing an exam in her kitchen, Dr. Clark stated that she did not “examine her
shoulder for range of motion and did not take a full history.” Ex. 10 at ¶7.
Ex. 14 at ¶3. Both Petitioner and Dr. Clark, however, recalled that Dr. Clark
advised Petitioner to seek medical care, including an MRI. Ex. 5 at ¶10; Ex.
14 at 5.
• During that summer, Petitioner recalled returning to the Walmart pharmacy
and speaking to the pharmacist who had administered her vaccination. Ex.
10 at ¶8. She alleges that he wrote down her information and said he would
report the incident to his manager. Id. After several weeks, Petitioner stated,
she received a call from a woman from Walmart who asked her some
questions, but then determined that she “could not prove the vaccine had
caused her injury.” Id. On September 7, 2019, a VAERS report was filed by
Jafar Ahmed reporting Petitioner’s “lingering pain at injection site 3 months
after administration.” Ex. 15 at 3. Mr. Ahmed recorded his profession as
“Healthcare professional/staff” and his address as 7725 Hoke Road,
Clayton, Ohio, 42315, the same address as the Walmart pharmacy. Id; Ex.
12 at 13.
• Petitioner explained that she did not seek the medical care or MRI
suggested by Dr. Clark because she did not have insurance and did not feel
she could afford the costs. Ex. 10 at ¶10. After months of pain, however,
she decided to make an appointment and pay out-of-pocket. Id.
• Petitioner sought treatment from a new primary care practice on October 9,
2019 (almost five months after her vaccination), where she saw family nurse
practitioner, Sara Jean Neal APRN. Ex. 2 at 9. Petitioner reported at this
5

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 6 of 8
time that she had received a Tdap vaccine in May, and “since then her arm
has been sore.” Id. at 10. She reported that “after it happened her arm
swelled up and warm to the touch with redness.” Id. NP Neal noted that
Petitioner had no health insurance at the time of the visit. Id. NP Neal did
not make any specific findings regarding Petitioner’s shoulder or a
diagnosis.
• Two weeks later, on October 25, 2019, Petitioner presented to orthopedic
surgeon, Adam J. Dann, D.O. Ex. 13 at 18. Petitioner reported shoulder
pain since her Tdap vaccination on May 20, 2019. Id. Dr. Dann diagnosed
“subacromial bursitis” and referred Petitioner to physical therapy to
establish a home exercise plan and instructed her to follow up with him in
six weeks. Id. at 19.
• On October 29, 2019, Petitioner presented for an initial physical therapy
evaluation. Ex. 13 at 14. She reported “receiving a Tdap injection from
Walmart with immediate swelling and pain.” Id. Petitioner reported that the
thought her pain would get better with time, but that it did not. Id. at 15. The
record notes a plan of care with long term treatment goals to be met by
December 10, 2019, but also that Petitioner was “self-pay and hoping for
HEP only at this visit.” Id. at 15-16. Petitioner explained that each physical
therapy treatment was $150.00 and she could not afford to pay for additional
sessions. Ex. 10 at ¶11.
• Petitioner returned to her orthopedist on December 20, 2019, reporting
increased pain since her last visit. Ex. 13 at 11. Dr. Dann administered a
corticosteroid injection and instructed Petitioner to follow up in another six
weeks. Id. On April 17, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Dann. Ex. 13 at 8.
She reported that her shoulder symptoms were unchanged and received a
second corticosteroid injection. Id. at 8-9.
• Petitioner continued to treat her shoulder symptoms, including scheduling a
surgery in the summer of 2020. Ex. 8 at 7. However, due to an abnormal
EKG, the surgery was postponed. Id. at 17. There are no additional records.
Respondent questions the length of time between Petitioner’s vaccination and any
record evidence memorializing her symptoms. Resp. at 6. In particular, the “first
documentation alleging any kind of adverse reaction to the vaccine” was from more than
3.5 months after her vaccination, and that the first time petitioner sought “care for her
alleged shoulder pain from a medical provider” was nearly five months after vaccination.
Id. at 6-7.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 7 of 8
Clearly Petitioner delayed seeking care for her alleged injury. But although it is
reasonable to expect that an average claimant “might seek medical treatment sooner if in
fact the person was experiencing sudden post-vaccination pain,” there are a variety of
credible explanations for why such treatment might be delayed. Pitts v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 18-1512V, 2020 WL 2959421, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 29,
2020). Therefore, delay does not per se preclude a finding of Table onset; rather, the
context for the delay informs how much weight to give the issue.
Petitioner’s case is similar to the petitioner in Winkle v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 20-0485, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 3, 2021) (finding
onset within 48 hours where petitioner sought treatment for the first time nearly five
months after vaccination). Like the petitioner in Winkle, although there was a longer-than-
average delay in seeking treatment for her shoulder pain, Ms. Reser did not seek
treatment for any medical issue during the period between her vaccination on May 20,
2019 and her first report of shoulder pain. “Such intervening treatment evidence can in
many cases either corroborate a petitioner's claim or undermine it – but it is totally absent
here.” Winkle, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4. Thus, this is not a case where records show
concrete opportunities to seek care in the delay period.
In addition, Petitioner has provided a reasonable and consistent explanation for
her decision to delay formal medical treatment. See, e.g., Stevens v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs, No. 90-221, 1990 WL 608693, *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 1990) (noting that
clear, cogent, and consistent testimony can overcome missing or contradictory medical
records). Petitioner states that she did not have health insurance at the time of her injury,
a fact not just established by her sworn testimony, but corroborated both by her employer,
Dr. Clark, who prescribed medications for her other chronic medical conditions, and in
her medical records. Ex. 10 at ¶10, Ex. 14 at ¶2, Ex. 2 at 9 (Petitioner did not have health
insurance at her October 9, 2019 visit); Ex. 13 at 15-16 (Petitioner was self-pay at physical
therapy). Petitioner’s affidavit testimony is consistent with her contemporaneous medical
records, and Dr. Clark’s affidavit, regarding the onset of her pain. The Federal Circuit has
held that it is appropriate to credit the lay testimony of a petitioner when said testimony
does not conflict with the medical records. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1384.
Further, Petitioner sought what medical treatment was available to her while
uninsured: she consulted with her employer, Dr. Clark, who had previously provided her
with basic “free” medical care. See Ex. 14 at 2 (Dr. Clark provided “some medical care”
for Petitioner at her home after she lost her health insurance.). In particular, Petitioner
recalled consulting with Dr. Clark the day after her vaccination, when her arm was
swollen, red and painful, and again a week later when the swelling and redness had
resolved (although the pain remained). Ex. 10 at ¶4-6. Dr. Clark herself recalled the
redness in Petitioner’s shoulder - suggesting that Petitioner consulted her about her injury
at least in the first week after vaccination. Ex. 14 at 3. Dr. Clark also recalled that
7

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/16/23 Page 8 of 8
Petitioner had “ongoing shoulder pain ever since the vaccination” and that she
“encouraged her to get established with a primary care provider and to consider obtaining
an MRI.” Id. at ¶4-5. Petitioner also returned to the Walmart pharmacy where she received
her vaccination, reporting lingering pain since her vaccination. See Ex. 15 at 3 (VAERS
report by Jafar Ahmed at the same address as the Walmart pharmacy, noting “lingering
pain at injection site three months after administration.”).
I also note that once Petitioner sought formal treatment, her contemporaneous
medical records reveal repeated consistent reports of onset of pain at or very soon after
her vaccination. See Winkle, 2021 WL 2808993, at *4 (noting that petitioner’s consistent
statements to treatment providers should be afforded substantial weight as they were
made contemporaneously and for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment). At her first
visit with NP Neal on October 9, 2019, Petitioner reported a Tdap vaccination in May, but
also that “since then her arm has been sore.” Ex. 2 at 9. Next, Petitioner presented to an
orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Dann, where she reported a Tdap vaccination on May 20, 2019
with complaints that “the shoulder has hurt since.” Ex. 3 at 18. When Petitioner presented
for a physical therapy initial evaluation on October 29, 2019, she reported “immediate
swelling and pain” after her May 20, 2019 Tdap vaccination. Id. at 14. The totality of the
record shows that Petitioner’s pain began almost immediately after her vaccination and
persisted thereafter. Without exception, Petitioner attributed her pain to her vaccination.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
The following is ORDERED: Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday,
March 13, 2023, a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in this case
in light of the record and this fact ruling. The status report shall indicate whether he is
willing to engage in discussions regarding settlement or damages or remains opposed to
negotiating at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00825-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/13/2023) regarding 43 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0825V
UNPUBLISHED
KIMBERLY RESER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 13, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 8, 2020, Kimberly Reser 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 a Tdap vaccination she received on May 20, 2019.
Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her shoulder injury lasted longer than six
months. Petition at ¶9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On March 13, 2023, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
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-00825-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 2
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2. Specifically, Respondent states that “in light of the
Chief Special Master’s Fact Ruling and medical evidence submitted in this case, DICP
has concluded that Petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id.
at 7. Respondent further agrees that “Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00825-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/28/2023) regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 52 Filed 04/28/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0825V
UNPUBLISHED
KIMBERLY RESER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 28, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 8, 2020, Kimberly Reser 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 a Tdap vaccination she received on May 20, 2019.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On March 13, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for her SIRVA. On March 27, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $68,430.72,
representing $66,000.00 in pain and suffering and $2,430.72 in past unreimbursable
expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with
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-00825-UNJ Document 52 Filed 04/28/23 Page 2 of 5
the proffered 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 $68,430.72, comprised of $66,000.00 in pain and suffering and
$2,430.72 in past unreimbursable expenses, 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-00825-UNJ Document 52 Filed 04/28/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
KIMBERLY RESER,
Petitioner, No. 20-825V (SPU)
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On July 8, 2020, Kimberly Reser (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1
to -34, as amended, alleging she suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), “a ‘Table’ injury,” as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on May 20, 2019. Petition at 1. On March 13, 2023, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report
advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s February 9, 2023 Finding of Fact
ruling that the onset of petitioner’s left arm pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and the
medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied
all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 42. That same day,
Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was
entitled to vaccine compensation for her SIRVA.1 ECF No. 43.
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

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 52 Filed 04/28/23 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
a. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $66,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
b. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $2,430.72. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled 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 $68,430.72, 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
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s February 9, 2023 Finding of Fact and March 13, 2023 entitlement decision.
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

Case 1:20-vv-00825-UNJ Document 52 Filed 04/28/23 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Dorian Hurley
DORIAN HURLEY
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) 353-7751
Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov
Dated: March 27, 2023
3