VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01352
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01352
Petitioner: Veronica Vogel
Filed: 2020-10-09
Decided: 2026-02-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Veronica Vogel filed a petition alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine she received on October 11, 2017. She had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, and Type 2 diabetes. After vaccination, she experienced left shoulder pain and swelling, with diminished range of motion. Medical records showed inconsistent reporting of the onset of her shoulder pain, with some records suggesting onset months after the vaccination, and a significant delay in seeking initial treatment. The court noted that the petitioner's primary care physician had no record of visits for shoulder pain during the alleged onset period. Because the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, as required for a Table SIRVA claim, the court dismissed her Table claim. The decision noted that it remains possible for her to pursue a causation-in-fact claim.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01352-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-24
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/21/2026) regarding 38 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1352V
VERONICA VOGEL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 21, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Franks Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1
On October 9, 2020, Veronica Vogel 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
11, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons set forth below, I find Petitioner has not established that she can
meet the elements of a Table SIRVA claim.
1 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-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 6
I. Relevant Procedural History
On March 13, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation.
ECF No. 32 at 4-7. On July 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record
in favor of the claim. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 36.
Respondent opposed the motion on February 26, 2025, reiterating the arguments set
forth in the Rule 4(c) Report. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on
the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 37. Petitioner did not file a reply. The matter is ripe for
resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Prior to vaccination Petitioner had a medical history including carpal tunnel
syndrome in an “unspecified upper limb,” arthritis, and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with
diabetic autonomic polyneuropathy. Ex. 4 at 3-4, 8, 10. On October 11, 2017, Petitioner
received a flu vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 2 at 1.
There is a subsequent treatment gap of almost six months. On April 2, 2018,
Petitioner met with Richard Marietta, M.D., reporting pain and swelling in her right hand
and thumb for eight months (which meant before vaccination), and “left arm pain after flu
shot 10/2017.” Ex. 7 at 6. Dr. Marietta noted that Petitioner had diminished range of
motion and limited abduction in her left shoulder. Id. at 7. Dr. Marietta suggested that
Petitioner see an orthopedist for her “near frozen left shoulder.” Id. at 8.
On May 17, 2018, Petitioner met with orthopedist Andrew Li-Yung Hing, M.D., for
shoulder pain that began “5 months ago after [a] flu shot.” Ex. 6 at 29. She also reported
“sudden onset of constant episodes of moderate left shoulder pain.” Id. Petitioner stated
that her “[e]pisodes started about 2 months ago.” Id. She continued that her pain level
was a 10/10 and was worse with movement. Id. X-rays were unremarkable, and a steroid
injection was administered into Petitioner’s left shoulder. Id. at 32. Dr. Hing diagnosed
Petitioner with adhesive capsulitis and recommended physical therapy. Id. at 33.
Petitioner attended 26 physical therapy (“PT”) sessions between May 31 and
October 2018. Ex. 5 at 7-116. The record from the initial PT session notes that Petitioner’s
“[c]urrent problem(s) began” on November 1, 2017, and that she received a flu vaccine in
November, after which she started to have pain and movement issues. Id. at 29. During
that period Petitioner saw Dr. Hing for an additional follow-up regarding her left shoulder.
Ex. 6 at 23.3
3 Petitioner also claims that she saw Dr. Hing in September 2018. Ex. 1 at 3. However, there is no record
of this encounter.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 6
Petitioner returned to Dr. Hing on October 5, 2018, for a follow up regarding her
shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 19. Dr. Hing noted Petitioner’s shoulder pain was “improved” and
she had “increased range of motion.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with adhesive
capsulitis of the left shoulder and was provided a new prescription for PT. Id. at 22.
On February 13, 2019 (after another treatment gap – this time of four-plus months),
Petitioner contacted her primary care provider for an unrelated medication refill. Ex. 8 at
7. It was noted Petitioner “completed a course of physical therapy for her left shoulder but
still has marketed [sic] limited range of motion.” Id.
A year later, on February 12, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Marietta for unrelated
medication refill. Ex. 8 at 1. It was noted that Petitioner had received her annual flu shot.
Id. There are no reports of left shoulder pain at this visit. Then, on November 13, 2021
(almost two years since her last visit), Petitioner sought treatment for “left shoulder and
upper arm pain after a fall from a bicycle accident.” Ex. 9 at 21. Petitioner reported that
she was knocked off her bicycle when a vehicle swerved and “she landed on her left arm.”
Id. Petitioner reported having a “previous fracture to the left wrist in August of this year”
for which she was “wearing a split.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with a closed fracture of
the left proximal humerus. Id. at 25.
No further medical records have been filed. Petitioner did, however, submit a signed
declaration in support of her Petition. ECF No. 1-2. Petitioner confirms she received a flu
vaccine on October 11, 2017, at her employer. Id. at 1. She stated that “[i]mmediately
after receiving the vaccine, the injection site burned and was very painful.” Id. at 2. Her
arm “became increasingly sore and “grew more intense over the few weeks.” Id. She
continued that “[i]n or around November 2017 or December 2017” she made an
appointment with her then PCP, Dr. Pranav Bhakta, because the pain had not subsided
and her range of motion had not improved. Id. at 2. In 2018 Petitioner sought treatment
from a different provider and began treatment with Dr. Marietta. Petitioner then described
the events as listed in the medical records. Id. Petitioner continued to report that she
performed home exercises between October 2018 and October 2020 provided by her
physical therapist. Id. at 4. To date she continues to suffer difficulties with her daily
activities due to her left shoulder pain. Id.
ANALYSIS
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
3

Case 1:20-vv-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 6
Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a
petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which
case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination
she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). 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;
(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 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 facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:20-vv-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 6
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is
“consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
After a review of the entire record, I find that Petitioner cannot meet the SIRVA
requirement of preponderantly establishing pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B).
First, there is inconsistency in the overall record as to the time of onset.
Contemporaneous treatment records variously place onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
in either October, November, or December of 2017; or January or March 2018. Second,
Petitioner’s significant initial treatment delay (which in and of itself does not preclude a
favorable onset determination) further undermines her subsequent onset reports.
Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on April 2, 2018, six months after her vaccination.
Ex. 7 at 6. And although she did at that time link her complaints to the vaccination, she
next reported shoulder pain to orthopedist Dr. Hing on May 17, 2018, stating that her
shoulder pain began “5 months ago after [a] flu shot”, putting onset in December 2017.
Ex. 6 at 29. She also stated during that visit that episodes of moderate shoulder pain
“started about 2 months ago,” meaning onset would have been even later. These
inconsistencies overall do not weigh in favor of a Table-consistent onset.
Petitioner explains in her affidavit that she reported left shoulder pain several times
prior to April 2, 2018. In particular, she claims to have reported shoulder pain to a PCP in
5

Case 1:20-vv-01352-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 6
November or December 2017. However, that PCP (Dr. Bhakta) claims to have no record
of a visit during this period. ECF No. 28 at 1. Petitioner also claims to have seen Dr.
Marietta in January and March 2018 for shoulder pain - but there are no records of these
visits either.
Given Petitioner’s inconsistent onset reports, I find there is not preponderant
evidence that onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within
48-hours of vaccination.
CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner has failed to meet the QAI requirements for a Table
SIRVA I must DISMISS her Table claim. However, it remains possible that she may
be able to make out a causation-in-fact claim. To that end, the parties shall contact
the staff attorney assigned to this matter to schedule a status conference, at which
time the contours of such a claim will be discussed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6