VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01228
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01228
Petitioner: Donna Verdisco
Filed: 2020-09-18
Decided: 2025-10-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-09-20
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 18, 2020, Donna Verdisco filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 20, 2017 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The public decisions identify her as an adult petitioner but do not state her exact age.

The case required fact findings because the vaccine record listed the right arm, while Ms. Verdisco maintained the injection was in her left arm. Her September 25, 2017 annual examination did not mention shoulder problems. Five days later, on September 30, she reported left arm pain after a flu injection about 10 days earlier, with swelling and limited range of motion. On October 24, orthopedist Dr. Redler recorded severe pain with the injection, pain down the arm, inability to move the left arm, exquisite deltoid tenderness and swelling, and severe pain with any motion. MRI showed generalized edema and impingement/tendinosis without tear. Physical therapy records described a high shot, immediate severe pain, pain down the arm to the hand, and marked functional limits.

Chief Special Master Corcoran found that the vaccine was likely administered in the left arm and that onset occurred within the SIRVA time frame despite the September 25 silence. He credited consistent vaccine-associated left-shoulder complaints, the orthopedist and therapy records, and Ms. Verdisco's account. After the fact ruling, respondent reserved appeal rights but conceded entitlement. On October 27, 2025, the Chief Special Master found Ms. Verdisco entitled to compensation. Damages remained to be determined.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine September 20, 2017 causing left Table SIRVA in adult petitioner. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED, DAMAGES PENDING. Vaccine record listed right arm, but records supported left arm: September 30, 2017 left arm pain/swelling/limited ROM after flu injection; October 24 ortho noted severe injection pain, deltoid swelling/tenderness, MRI edema/impingement/tendinosis; PT noted high shot/immediate pain and severe functional limits. CSM Corcoran found left-arm situs and onset within 48 hours; respondent conceded after fact ruling while preserving appeal rights. Decision October 27, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01228-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-19
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/10/2025) regarding 59 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-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1228V
DONNA VERDISCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 10, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Theodore Heiser, Suisman Shapiro, New London, CT, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On September 18, 2020, Donna Verdisco 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 20, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons discussed below, I find that, more likely than not, the flu vaccine
was administered in Petitioner’s left arm, and that the onset of her shoulder pain likely
began within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Procedural History
In his Rule 4 Report, Respondent objected to compensation on two grounds (ECF
No. 47). First, Respondent argued that Petitioner had not established that she received
the alleged vaccination, since she had not filed a vaccine administration record, and the
medical records did not establish the type and administration location of the vaccine.
Second, Respondent asserted that Petitioner had not established that the onset of her
pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Thereafter, I issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause by September 30,
2024 why the case should not be dismissed due to these deficiencies (ECF No. 48). This
deadline was extended multiple times, and on November 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a
response to the show cause order (ECF No. 52) asserting that the case should not be
dismissed because she had obtained a vaccination record, which she attached to her
response. The vaccination record (ECF No. 52-1) shows that Petitioner received a flu
vaccine in her right arm on September 20, 2017. Her show cause response did not
address the onset of her shoulder pain.
I subsequently observed that the vaccination record indicated the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right arm, but the Petition asserted a claim for a left shoulder
injury, and I therefore directed Petitioner to determine if an amended petition and/or
additional evidence as to the vaccination situs should be filed.3 Scheduling Order, issued
Nov. 27, 2024 (ECF No. 54). In response, Petitioner filed a document titled “Amended
Petition” (ECF No. 56).4 This filing was signed by Petitioner, rather than counsel of record
as required by Vaccine Rule 14(b)(3).
II. Factual Finding
A. Legal Standard
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). In making this
3 I also noted that the vaccination record had not been designated with an exhibit number, and directed
Petitioner to re-file it with an exhibit number. Petitioner has not done so.
4 Petitioner also filed a notice of filing stating that she was filing Exhibits 24-26 (ECF No. 57). These were
not properly labeled or paginated, and were not filed as separate PDFs attached to a notice of filing as
required. Petitioner is cautioned that future non-complaint filings may be stricken.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 3 of 8
determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a whole. Section
13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or by medical
opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). “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).
To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a petitioner
may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“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) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,5 a petitioner must establish that he or she suffered an injury
meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be
caused-in-fact by the vaccination he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they “suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine . . . .” Section
11(c)(1)(D).
“[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
5 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 4 of 8
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for four months,
followed by fifteen-month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
requirement satisfied where Petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five-
month mark).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 5 of 8
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
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.
B. Medical Records
On September 20, 2017, Petitioner received a flu vaccine (ECF No. 52-1). The
vaccination record states that it was administered in her right arm, although Petitioner
asserts this is inaccurate.
Five days later (September 25, 2017), Petitioner saw her primary care provider
(“PCP”) for an annual examination. Ex. 1 at 5. The record is silent on shoulder pain, and
on examination Petitioner was found to have “[n]ormal range of motion,” with no edema
or tenderness. Id. at 5-7.
Petitioner returned to her PCP ten days after vaccination (September 30, 2017),
and was now complaining of left arm pain “[a]fter a flu injection.” Ex. 1 at 68. She
explained that she had received a flu vaccine ten days prior, and thereafter experienced
left shoulder pain and swelling with limited range of motion. Ex. 1 at 68. On examination,
her left shoulder was swollen and exhibited limited abduction. Id. at 70. She was assessed
as having had a traumatic vaccination and given steroid medication, along with being
advised to rest and use ice and Tylenol as needed. Id. at 71.
The following month (October 24, 2017), Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. Michael
Redler for left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 1. Petitioner stated that she had received a flu shot
several weeks prior and had “severe pain with the injection and then pain running down
her arm and inability to move her left arm.” Id. On examination, Dr. Redler noted
“[e]xquisite tenderness to palpation” and swelling around the left deltoid. Id. at 2. Any
motion caused severe pain, and he observed that she “seems to have nerve like pain . .
. along axillary nerve distribution.” Id. Her MRI showed some generalized edema and
impingement tendinosis, but no evidence of a tear. Id. Petitioner received a cortisone
injection and was referred for physical therapy (“PT”). Id.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 6 of 8
A few weeks later (November 13, 2017), Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation for
her left shoulder. Ex. 6 at 7. She explained that “about five weeks ago she received a flu
shot and the shot was administered very high in her arm. She felt a severe pain in her
arm and screamed.” Id. The pain traveled down her arm into her hand, and she was
unable to move her arm for two hours after the injury. Id. Since then, she had severe pain
that she rated nine out of ten at present, and ten out of ten at worst. Id. She was assessed
as having pain along with deficits in strength, range of motion, mobility, and stability. Id.
at 8. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to treat with PT and followed up with Dr. Redler and
her PCP, in addition to undergoing an EMG and consulting a chiropractor. Ex. 1 at 45-47;
Ex. 2 at 4-9; Ex. 3 at 1-4; Ex. 5 at 1-7; Ex. 6 at 11-40.
C. Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of her claim. Ex. 8. She states that she
received the vaccine at work, and “[i]mmediately following the administration of the
vaccine, I experienced significant pain in my left shoulder at and around the site of the
vaccination shot.” Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7. The pain ran down her left arm into her hand, and she
left work early due to the pain. Id. She learned from her employer’s human resources
department that many people complained that the nurse had administered vaccines too
high on their arms. Id. at ¶ 8. In the following days, Petitioner’s shoulder pain did not
subside, and eventually as the pain worsened she lost much of her range of motion. Id.
at ¶¶ 9, 10.
On January 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a document that is titled “Amended Petition
of Donna Verdisco” (ECF No. 56). This filing was not signed by counsel of record as
required by Vaccine Rule 14(b)(3), but instead by Petitioner herself (ECF No. 56 at 11).
Additionally, while this document purports to be notarized, the notary is not named, nor
does the document contain a notary stamp or state when the notary’s commission
expires. Id. The signature above the “Notary Public” line is illegible. Id. And the filing does
not comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 for sworn declarations. As such,
although I treat it as testimonial evidence, the document has authenticity and reliability
deficiencies that infect the weight it can be given.
In this unsworn January 22, 2025 testimonial statement, Petitioner states that the
vaccination record indicating that the vaccine was given in her right arm is inaccurate
(ECF No. 56 at 7 ¶ 8). She adds that when she saw her PCP on September 25, 2017, for
a pre-scheduled annual examination, she discussed her shoulder pain, although this was
not documented in the record. Id. at 7 ¶ 12. Her PCP went through the usual annual
examination and told her to return to follow up on her shoulder pain if it did not resolve –
which she did, five days later. Id.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 7 of 8
D. Finding of Fact
I find that the record preponderantly supports a finding that Petitioner’s September
20, 2017 vaccine was likely administered in her left arm. Although the vaccination record
states it was administered in her right arm, all other evidence supports a left arm situs.
Thus, when Petitioner presented to her PCP just ten days after vaccination, she related
her left shoulder pain to the vaccine. Similarly, she complained of left shoulder pain from
vaccination to her orthopedist and physical therapist. That she promptly sought care
strengthens her claim in this regard.
I also find that the record preponderantly supports a finding that the onset of
Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours after vaccination. Petitioner sought
treatment for shoulder pain just ten days after vaccination. When seeking care, she
consistently reported vaccination-associated pain. Although she did not specifically tell
her treaters that her pain began within 48 hours, this is not required. Instead, the standard
for resolving factual questions such as the onset of pain is whether the petitioner has
demonstrated the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Vaccine Act
§ 13(a)(1); Kelly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-2202V, 2025 WL 1276206,
at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 2025) (“Contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, there
is no requirement that a medical record state that a petitioner’s pain began specifically
within 48 hours in order for a claimant to succeed on a SIRVA Table claim”); Roberson v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-2309V, 2025 WL 605724 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 24, 2025) (stating that the “absence of a specific date” of onset in medical records is
not “compelling or particularly meaningful,” and finding onset within 48 hours where the
petitioner sought care 23 days after vaccination and reported pain for two to three weeks
at the time of vaccination).
That the record of Petitioner’s September 25, 2017 annual examination is silent on
shoulder pain, and even states that she had normal range of motion without edema or
tenderness, weakens Petitioner’s position somewhat. However, the fact that she returned
to her PCP five days later – and only ten days after vaccination – complaining of shoulder
pain weighs in Petitioner’s favor as to onset. And she maintains that she did report
shoulder pain at the September 25th visit, and was told to return if it persisted – which
she did, just five days later.
III. Scheduling Order
Because the document filed as an amended petition was not signed by counsel, it
is treated as testimonial evidence rather than an amended pleading. Petitioner may re-
file it as an amended petition signed by counsel of record if desired.
• Petitioner may file, by no later than Monday, August 04, 2025, an amended
petition.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/19/25 Page 8 of 8
• Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, September 08, 2025, a status
report indicating whether, in light of my ruling herein, he is willing to engage
in tentative discussions regarding settlement or proffer or remains opposed
to negotiating.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01228-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-26
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/10/2025) regarding 59 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-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1228V
DONNA VERDISCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 10, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Theodore Heiser, Suisman Shapiro, New London, CT, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On September 18, 2020, Donna Verdisco 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 20, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons discussed below, I find that, more likely than not, the flu vaccine
was administered in Petitioner’s left arm, and that the onset of her shoulder pain likely
began within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Procedural History
In his Rule 4 Report, Respondent objected to compensation on two grounds (ECF
No. 47). First, Respondent argued that Petitioner had not established that she received
the alleged vaccination, since she had not filed a vaccine administration record, and the
medical records did not establish the type and administration location of the vaccine.
Second, Respondent asserted that Petitioner had not established that the onset of her
pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Thereafter, I issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause by September 30,
2024 why the case should not be dismissed due to these deficiencies (ECF No. 48). This
deadline was extended multiple times, and on November 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a
response to the show cause order (ECF No. 52) asserting that the case should not be
dismissed because she had obtained a vaccination record, which she attached to her
response. The vaccination record (ECF No. 52-1) shows that Petitioner received a flu
vaccine in her right arm on September 20, 2017. Her show cause response did not
address the onset of her shoulder pain.
I subsequently observed that the vaccination record indicated the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right arm, but the Petition asserted a claim for a left shoulder
injury, and I therefore directed Petitioner to determine if an amended petition and/or
additional evidence as to the vaccination situs should be filed.3 Scheduling Order, issued
Nov. 27, 2024 (ECF No. 54). In response, Petitioner filed a document titled “Amended
Petition” (ECF No. 56).4 This filing was signed by Petitioner, rather than counsel of record
as required by Vaccine Rule 14(b)(3).
II. Factual Finding
A. Legal Standard
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). In making this
3 I also noted that the vaccination record had not been designated with an exhibit number, and directed
Petitioner to re-file it with an exhibit number. Petitioner has not done so.
4 Petitioner also filed a notice of filing stating that she was filing Exhibits 24-26 (ECF No. 57). These were
not properly labeled or paginated, and were not filed as separate PDFs attached to a notice of filing as
required. Petitioner is cautioned that future non-complaint filings may be stricken.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 3 of 8
determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a whole. Section
13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or by medical
opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). “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).
To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a petitioner
may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“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) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,5 a petitioner must establish that he or she suffered an injury
meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be
caused-in-fact by the vaccination he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they “suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine . . . .” Section
11(c)(1)(D).
“[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
5 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 4 of 8
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for four months,
followed by fifteen-month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
requirement satisfied where Petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five-
month mark).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 5 of 8
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
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.
B. Medical Records
On September 20, 2017, Petitioner received a flu vaccine (ECF No. 52-1). The
vaccination record states that it was administered in her right arm, although Petitioner
asserts this is inaccurate.
Five days later (September 25, 2017), Petitioner saw her primary care provider
(“PCP”) for an annual examination. Ex. 1 at 5. The record is silent on shoulder pain, and
on examination Petitioner was found to have “[n]ormal range of motion,” with no edema
or tenderness. Id. at 5-7.
Petitioner returned to her PCP ten days after vaccination (September 30, 2017),
and was now complaining of left arm pain “[a]fter a flu injection.” Ex. 1 at 68. She
explained that she had received a flu vaccine ten days prior, and thereafter experienced
left shoulder pain and swelling with limited range of motion. Ex. 1 at 68. On examination,
her left shoulder was swollen and exhibited limited abduction. Id. at 70. She was assessed
as having had a traumatic vaccination and given steroid medication, along with being
advised to rest and use ice and Tylenol as needed. Id. at 71.
The following month (October 24, 2017), Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. Michael
Redler for left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 1. Petitioner stated that she had received a flu shot
several weeks prior and had “severe pain with the injection and then pain running down
her arm and inability to move her left arm.” Id. On examination, Dr. Redler noted
“[e]xquisite tenderness to palpation” and swelling around the left deltoid. Id. at 2. Any
motion caused severe pain, and he observed that she “seems to have nerve like pain . .
. along axillary nerve distribution.” Id. Her MRI showed some generalized edema and
impingement tendinosis, but no evidence of a tear. Id. Petitioner received a cortisone
injection and was referred for physical therapy (“PT”). Id.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 6 of 8
A few weeks later (November 13, 2017), Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation for
her left shoulder. Ex. 6 at 7. She explained that “about five weeks ago she received a flu
shot and the shot was administered very high in her arm. She felt a severe pain in her
arm and screamed.” Id. The pain traveled down her arm into her hand, and she was
unable to move her arm for two hours after the injury. Id. Since then, she had severe pain
that she rated nine out of ten at present, and ten out of ten at worst. Id. She was assessed
as having pain along with deficits in strength, range of motion, mobility, and stability. Id.
at 8. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to treat with PT and followed up with Dr. Redler and
her PCP, in addition to undergoing an EMG and consulting a chiropractor. Ex. 1 at 45-47;
Ex. 2 at 4-9; Ex. 3 at 1-4; Ex. 5 at 1-7; Ex. 6 at 11-40.
C. Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of her claim. Ex. 8. She states that she
received the vaccine at work, and “[i]mmediately following the administration of the
vaccine, I experienced significant pain in my left shoulder at and around the site of the
vaccination shot.” Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7. The pain ran down her left arm into her hand, and she
left work early due to the pain. Id. She learned from her employer’s human resources
department that many people complained that the nurse had administered vaccines too
high on their arms. Id. at ¶ 8. In the following days, Petitioner’s shoulder pain did not
subside, and eventually as the pain worsened she lost much of her range of motion. Id.
at ¶¶ 9, 10.
On January 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a document that is titled “Amended Petition
of Donna Verdisco” (ECF No. 56). This filing was not signed by counsel of record as
required by Vaccine Rule 14(b)(3), but instead by Petitioner herself (ECF No. 56 at 11).
Additionally, while this document purports to be notarized, the notary is not named, nor
does the document contain a notary stamp or state when the notary’s commission
expires. Id. The signature above the “Notary Public” line is illegible. Id. And the filing does
not comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 for sworn declarations. As such,
although I treat it as testimonial evidence, the document has authenticity and reliability
deficiencies that infect the weight it can be given.
In this unsworn January 22, 2025 testimonial statement, Petitioner states that the
vaccination record indicating that the vaccine was given in her right arm is inaccurate
(ECF No. 56 at 7 ¶ 8). She adds that when she saw her PCP on September 25, 2017, for
a pre-scheduled annual examination, she discussed her shoulder pain, although this was
not documented in the record. Id. at 7 ¶ 12. Her PCP went through the usual annual
examination and told her to return to follow up on her shoulder pain if it did not resolve –
which she did, five days later. Id.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 7 of 8
D. Finding of Fact
I find that the record preponderantly supports a finding that Petitioner’s September
20, 2017 vaccine was likely administered in her left arm. Although the vaccination record
states it was administered in her right arm, all other evidence supports a left arm situs.
Thus, when Petitioner presented to her PCP just ten days after vaccination, she related
her left shoulder pain to the vaccine. Similarly, she complained of left shoulder pain from
vaccination to her orthopedist and physical therapist. That she promptly sought care
strengthens her claim in this regard.
I also find that the record preponderantly supports a finding that the onset of
Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours after vaccination. Petitioner sought
treatment for shoulder pain just ten days after vaccination. When seeking care, she
consistently reported vaccination-associated pain. Although she did not specifically tell
her treaters that her pain began within 48 hours, this is not required. Instead, the standard
for resolving factual questions such as the onset of pain is whether the petitioner has
demonstrated the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Vaccine Act
§ 13(a)(1); Kelly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-2202V, 2025 WL 1276206,
at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 2025) (“Contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, there
is no requirement that a medical record state that a petitioner’s pain began specifically
within 48 hours in order for a claimant to succeed on a SIRVA Table claim”); Roberson v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-2309V, 2025 WL 605724 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 24, 2025) (stating that the “absence of a specific date” of onset in medical records is
not “compelling or particularly meaningful,” and finding onset within 48 hours where the
petitioner sought care 23 days after vaccination and reported pain for two to three weeks
at the time of vaccination).
That the record of Petitioner’s September 25, 2017 annual examination is silent on
shoulder pain, and even states that she had normal range of motion without edema or
tenderness, weakens Petitioner’s position somewhat. However, the fact that she returned
to her PCP five days later – and only ten days after vaccination – complaining of shoulder
pain weighs in Petitioner’s favor as to onset. And she maintains that she did report
shoulder pain at the September 25th visit, and was told to return if it persisted – which
she did, just five days later.
III. Scheduling Order
Because the document filed as an amended petition was not signed by counsel, it
is treated as testimonial evidence rather than an amended pleading. Petitioner may re-
file it as an amended petition signed by counsel of record if desired.
• Petitioner may file, by no later than Monday, August 04, 2025, an amended
petition.

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/26/25 Page 8 of 8
• Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, September 08, 2025, a status
report indicating whether, in light of my ruling herein, he is willing to engage
in tentative discussions regarding settlement or proffer or remains opposed
to negotiating.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01228-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/27/2025) regarding 78 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 84 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1228V
DONNA VERDISCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 27, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Theodore Heiser, Suisman Shapiro, New London, CT, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 18, 2020, Donna Verdisco filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), which she amended on August 1, 2025. Petitioner alleges that she
suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 20, 2017. Amended Petition (Aug. 1,
2025) at 1-8. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United
States, she suffered residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and she has
not previously collected an award or settlement of a civil action for damages for her
vaccine-related condition. Amended Petition at ¶ 2, 7-8; Declaration, filed Oct. 27, 2025,
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-01228-UNJ Document 84 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2
at ¶ 33 (ECF No. 77). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On July 10, 2025, I issued findings of fact that the flu vaccine was likely
administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder and the onset of her shoulder pain likely occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination (ECF No. 59).
On October 9, 2025, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) report in which, while
reserving the right to appeal my July 10th fact ruling, he stated that he will not defend the
case on other grounds during further proceedings in the Office of Special Masters.
Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1-2. Specifically, Respondent agrees that, in light of my fact
ruling and the evidence submitted, Petitioner has met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by
the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt
of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine
was administered; and no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has
been identified to explain petitioner’s left shoulder pain.” Id. at 8. Respondent further
agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months and, subject to his right to appeal the fact ruling,
Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Vaccine Act. 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