VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01858
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01858
Petitioner: Gabriel Flores
Filed: 2020-12-15
Decided: 2025-02-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-27
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 73184

AI-assisted case summary:
Gabriel Flores filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine he received on September 27, 2019. The case proceeded as a Table claim, meaning the injury was presumed to be caused by the vaccine if certain criteria were met. The court found that Mr. Flores had no prior history of left shoulder pain, that his pain began on the same day as the vaccination, and that the majority of his pain was located in his left shoulder, satisfying the Table requirements for SIRVA. He also met the other requirements for entitlement, including suffering residual effects for more than six months. The court initially deferred ruling on damages. In a subsequent decision, the court awarded Mr. Flores $72,500.00 for pain and suffering and $684.40 for unreimbursed medical expenses, for a total award of $73,184.40.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01858-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-29
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/24/2023) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1858V
UNPUBLISHED
GABRIEL FLORES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 24, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA);
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 15, 2020, Gabriel Flores (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on September 28, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons described below, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
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-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 2 of 10
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the claim’s initiation, Respondent indicated that he was interested in a
litigative risk settlement. ECF No. 23. The parties were unable to reach an agreement,
however, so Petitioner submitted a motion for a ruling on the record on June 24, 2022.
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Memorandum in Support (“Mot.”), ECF
No. 30. Petitioner argues therein that he meets the Table Claim requirements for a SIRVA.
Id. at 10-13. Petitioner has also briefed damages, and requests $85,000.00 for pain and
suffering, and $684.40 for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Id. at 13-19.
Respondent opposed compensation on August 23, 2022. Respondent’s Response
to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 35. Respondent argues
that Petitioner does not satisfy the Table requirements for a SIRVA, because he cannot
establish that onset of his shoulder pain occurred within forty-eight hours of vaccine
administration, and because his pain was reported outside of his shoulder. Id. at 12.
Petitioner filed a reply on September 6, 2022. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of his Motion
for Ruling on the Record and Damages Award (“Reply”), ECF No. 36.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left shoulder on September 27, 2019. Ex. 1
at 2. There is no history of prior left shoulder pain or issues.
On December 4, 2019 (more than two months post-vaccination), Petitioner
presented to Dr. Amit Agarwal for a routine wellness exam. Ex. 2 at 4. At this time,
Petitioner reported “left shoulder pain starting after receiving a flu shot.” Ex. 2 at 4. This
record also states that the “pain starts in his shoulder and travels down his arm.” Id. An
examination showed left anterior shoulder pain, decreased range of motion, but normal
strength. Id. at 5. Ibuprofen and cyclobenzaprine (a muscle relaxant) were prescribed. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Agarwal on December 23, 2019, for a follow-up regarding his
shoulder pain. Id. at 2. Petitioner stated the “pain started after receiving [sic] flu vaccine”
and it had not improved since the last visit. Id.
Approximately two weeks later, on January 7, 2020, Petitioner presented to Dr.
Daniel Troy, an orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 4 at 13. Dr. Troy noted that Petitioner complained
of localized left shoulder pain “that occurs occasionally.” Id. He also reported tingling and
numbness in his first and second digits, shoulder pain, and elbow pain. Id. Further,
Petitioner stated “this all started in September after he received a flu shot….” Id. Dr. Troy
also set forth in this record that Petitioner “has been trying to work through it but ever
since then has been having discomfort.” Id. An examination showed significant and
2

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 3 of 10
severe signs of impingement. Id. Petitioner was assessed with severe rotator cuff
tendinitis and left elbow lateral epicondylitis. Id at 13-14.
Petitioner underwent an MRI on January 30, 2020, and the resulting images were
deemed “highly suggestive of adhesive capsulitis/frozen shoulder”. Ex. 4 at 10. His
diagnosis now included lateral epicondylitis, left shoulder pain, and left shoulder adhesive
capsulitis. Id.
A follow-up on January 31, 2020, with an orthopedic physician assistant in Dr.
Troy’s office noted that the Petitioner continued to report pain in his elbow, but “the
majority of his pain [was] located in the left shoulder.” Ex. 4 at 9. The record also notes
that Petitioner “had this pain ever since receiving a flu shot in September….” Id. He was
assessed with left elbow pain secondary to epicondylitis, left shoulder pain secondary to
adhesive capsulitis, and atypical numbness or tingling in his hand. Id. A cortisone injection
was provided, and physical therapy was advised.
Petitioner began physical therapy more than a month later, on March 3, 2020. Ex.
3 at 22. The date of onset is listed as September 27, 2019. Id. The provider noted that
Petitioner “reported symptoms began after [he] received [a] flu shot last September….”
Id. He exhibited pain in his left shoulder that radiated down his arm, limited range of
motion, and tenderness in the epicondyle area. Id.
Following a stay-at-home order due to the spread of Covid-19, Petitioner continued
to perform home exercise, but reported (during a call with his physical therapist on March
30, 2020) that these self-treatment efforts were not improving his symptoms. Ex. 3 at 30.
An electrodiagnostic study was performed on April 8, 2020. Ex. 3 at 9. Petitioner
now reported that he had received “a flu shot in the left arm in September 2019, and the
same day he had pain in the anterior shoulder [], going down to the hand, and over the
next couple of weeks, he had increasing pain with loss of range of motion of the shoulder
for abduction.” Id. The diagnostic examination was normal, and Petitioner was assessed
with adhesive capsulitis. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Troy on April 14, 2020. Ex. 4 at 7. Dr. Troy noted that
Petitioner had shoulder pain and stiffness “[e]ver since he had the [flu] shot….” Id. Further,
Petitioner “developed an adhesive capsulitis and a frozen shoulder.” Id. Additionally,
Petitioner was unable to attend physical therapy because his insurance had
“unfortunately shut down their therapy with very limited therapy.” Id. Dr. Troy advised
Petitioner to undergo “aggressive home therapy.” A second steroid injection was offered
3

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 4 of 10
but refused. A telephone follow-up on April 16, 2020, reported ongoing pain. Ex. 3 at 30-
31.
On April 24, 2020, Petitioner began acupuncture therapy with Dr. Scott Lee. Ex. 8.
Dr. Lee noted that Petitioner had “left shoulder pain … since he had a vaccination 2
months ago.” Id. He attended five acupuncture sessions between April 24, 2020, and May
26, 2020. Ex. 8 at 2. His symptoms continued into May (Ex. 4 at 5), and then on June 8,
2020, he had a telehealth visit with Melissa Cartolano, FNP, reporting persistent “issues”
with his left shoulder and arm, along with left hand nerve pain “radiating from shoulder
intermittently.” Ex. 9 at 6.
Petitioner presented to Dr. Peter Dragisic on October 21, 2020, for an annual
wellness check. Ex. 9 at 2. Petitioner reported at this time that he “received a flu shot last
year, that day his left arm went numb with tingling” and he still had some symptoms. Id.
Dr. Dragisic noted that Petitioner’s shoulder pain was “chronic…after flu vaccination last
year.” Id.
On December 29, 2020, Petitioner had another follow-up appointment with Dr.
Troy. The record notes that Petitioner was “having this incidental induced adhesive
capsulitis based on his history given from a flu shot from last year.” Ex. 10 at 3. At that
time, Petitioner was “doing overall markedly better” but still had some residual
symptomatology. He was assessed with “residual adhesive capsulitis that was induced
form [sic] a flu shot.” Id. Petitioner was advised to contact his office if another steroid
injection was desired in the future, and he was advised to continue with anti-inflammatory
medications. Id. at 3-4.
Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of his claim, signed on December 29,
2020. Ex. 5. Therein, he states that he had a flu vaccine on September 27, 2019, and
began feeling pain that same day. Id. at 1-2. Petitioner also explained that he did not seek
immediate medical attention because he thought the pain would subside. Id. at 2.
Sergeant Janine V. Herman, one of Petitioner’s coworkers who had a flu
vaccination shortly after Petitioner, filed an “Injury On Duty/Witness Report” on February
19, 2020. In it, Sgt. Herman stated that Petitioner had informed her that he was
experiencing pain in his left shoulder shortly after receiving the flu vaccination. Ex. 7.
Further, “the reason for the delay” in filing the report was because Petitioner “was hopeful
that the side effects of [the] vaccination would subside.” Id.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 5 of 10
III. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner asserts that he satisfies all legal prerequisites for compensation. Mot. at
10-13. Respondent argues that Petitioner has not established onset within 48 hours of
his vaccination, and that pain was not limited to the shoulder in which he received the
vaccination. Opp. at 10-12.
IV. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must establish that he 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
3 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).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 6 of 10
(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
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).
A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 7 of 10
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner
meets this criterion, and I find that he has demonstrated a lack of history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder that would explain his symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
his Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first sought treatment approximately two months after his
September 27, 2019 vaccination. In the subsequent timeframe, he consistently reported
to treaters that he had experienced symptoms since the vaccination. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 4
(December 4, 2019, record stating left shoulder pain started “after receiving a flu shot”);
Ex. 2 at 2 (December 23, 2019 record stating that Petitioner’s pain started “after receiving”
flu vaccine); Ex. 4 at 13 (January 7, 2020 record stating that Petitioner’s pain “started in
September after he received a flu shot….”); Ex. 3 at 9 (April 8, 2020 record stating that
Petitioner had “a flu shot in the left arm in September 2019, and the same day he had
pain”); Ex. 9 at 2 (October 21, 2020 record stating that Petitioner’s symptoms began the
same day he received a flu shot).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s statements are vague, and only state his pain
began at some unspecified time after receiving the flu vaccination. Opp. at 10-11. But
even so, these statements are not inconsistent with a proper Table onset (and indeed
could be reasonably construed as supporting Table onset). A finding of proper onset can
be made based on such a record; Program petitioners are not required to point to records
setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day and hour that their onset
manifested.
Further, the relevant medical records show that Petitioner reported shoulder pain
“since” the vaccination in a relatively timely manner when measured from the date of
vaccination. Thus, Petitioner first began to identify the vaccine as the start of his pain a
bit more than two months post-vaccination – not immediately, but not wholly in an
attenuated and untimely period either. It is common for SIRVA petitioners to delay seeking
treatment, thinking the injury will resolve on its own, especially since patients are often
told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to expect some soreness and pain for
a period of time after. And individuals also often misconstrue the nature of their injury,
and therefore fail to inform treaters of all specific facts relevant to onset until later. Here,
7

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 8 of 10
the added detail of onset did not “wait” for months before being provided, but began to be
reported in a reasonable time post-vaccination. And Petitioner affirmatively and
repeatedly linked his shoulder pain to the September 27, 2019 flu vaccine (Ex. 2 at 2, 4),
even specifying that his pain began in September (Ex. 4 at 13), and (later) the same day
as his vaccination. Ex. 3 at 9; Ex. 9 at 2. Petitioner’s affidavits provide additional
corroborating evidence for onset of his injury. Ex. 5 at 1-2.
Accordingly, and based upon the above, I find there is preponderant evidence that
establishes the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within
48-hours of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to his Left Shoulder
Respondent claims that Petitioner cannot establish that his pain was limited to his
shoulder because he also reported pain in his left arm, left elbow, and left index finger.
Opp. at 10-11. While this contention has better substantiation than Respondent’s onset
argument, it also fails to rebut Petitioner’s Table showing.
The record unquestionably contains reports of non-shoulder pain complaints, but
at the same time consistently identifies shoulder pain and loss of range of motion in
Petitioner’s left shoulder as well. Ex. 2 at 4; Ex. 3 at 9, 22; And this is not a case where
the bulk of Petitioner's complaints included an area broader than the shoulder region, or
where the shoulder-specific complaints are preponderantly outweighed by other pain
occurring elsewhere. Rather, Petitioner’s complaints, and the diagnoses, are focused on
the shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 9 (January 31, 2020, record noting that Petitioner reported
pain his elbow, but “the majority of his pain [was] located in the left shoulder.”) (emphasis
added); id. at 10 (diagnosed with left shoulder pain and adhesive capsulitis); Ex. 3 at 9
(assessing Petitioner with left shoulder adhesive capsulitis).
Admittedly, pain reported in Petitioner’s left elbow and finger at times may be
unrelated to Petitioner’s SIRVA – but that kind of complaint or injury can be disregarded
in calculating damages. See Ex. 3 at 9, Ex. 4 at 7 (ruling out other pathology that may
have manifested symptoms such as elbow or finger pain). The mere existence of such
record complaints does not defeat a showing that Petitioner not only did experience
shoulder-specific pain, but that most of his complaints and treatment efforts were aimed
at that. Accordingly, preponderant evidence supports this Table element as well.
8

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 9 of 10
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on
September 27, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 2; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil
award for his injury. Ex. 5 at 7; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Further, onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was within 48 hours of vaccination.
See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this requirement). There is also no other
condition that would explain Petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B).
Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA.
The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of his
SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer
the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or required
surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Here,
Petitioner reported pain until at least December 29, 2020, more than six months after his
flu vaccination.
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, he has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
V. Damages
Petitioner requests $85,000.00 for pain and suffering and $684.40 in out-of-pocket
medical expenses. Mot. at 19. I decline to decide damages at this time. Instead, the
9

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 41 Filed 06/29/23 Page 10 of 10
parties are directed to discuss whether damages can be decided informally. If they cannot
come to an agreement within 30 days, additional briefing may be ordered.
Conclusion
In view of the record, I find preponderant evidence that Petitioner satisfies
the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA, and that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation.
The parties shall file a Joint Status Report by June 26, 2023, indicating
whether settlement discussions are likely to be productive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01858-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-26
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/24/2025) regarding 49 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 53 Filed 02/26/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1858V
GABRIEL FLORES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 24, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 15, 2020, Gabriel Flores filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a Table injury – a shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as a result of his receipt of the flu vaccine on
September 27, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters. Because the parties could not informally resolve the
issue of damages, they were ordered to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments
and were notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing,
which took place on January 24, 2025.
1 Because this Decision 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 53 Filed 02/26/25 Page 2 of 3
Petitioner seeks an award of $85,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering, while Respondent recommends an award of $60,000.00. (Pain and
suffering was the only element of damages in dispute at the hearing).3
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on damages
constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A),
at the conclusion of the January 24, 2025 hearing. An official recording of the proceeding
was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I
hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. As discussed
during my oral ruling, in another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard
to be considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I
fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections I and II of Yodowitz v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0370V, 2024 WL 4284926, at *1-3 (Fed. Cl. Aug.
23, 2024) to the instant ruling and decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral
ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts
relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision
awarding damages herein.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $72,500.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $684.40 in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum of $73,184.40 (representing an
award of $72,500.00 for pain and suffering and $684.40 for unreimbursed expenses)
to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for
prompt disbursement. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under Section 15(a).
3 Respondent raised in passing certain objections to requested prescription expenses at the January 24,
2025 hearing. But Respondent indicated in his damages brief that he had no objection to Petitioner’s
unreimbursed expenses. ECF No. 43 at 13, n. 3. Petitioner confirmed at the January 24, 2025 hearing that
the unreimbursed expenses sought in this case is $684.40. Ex. 11; ECF No. 30 at 19. Accordingly, I am
awarding that amount.
4 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01858-UNJ Document 53 Filed 02/26/25 Page 3 of 3
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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.
3