VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01942 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01942 Petitioner: Taone Randazzo Filed: 2020-12-22 Decided: 2025-07-09 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-16 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 50086.57 AI-assisted case summary: On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo, a 51-year-old nurse, filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 16, 2019 caused shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Ms. Randazzo described immediate pain at the injection, using words like "zing" and "ouch," followed by persistent left upper arm pain. She sought treatment about eight weeks later, and records later described subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis, adhesive capsulitis, and SIRVA. Respondent initially challenged the onset element, arguing that an immediate "zing" did not necessarily prove pain and that the delay in treatment weakened the claim. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the record supported pain within forty-eight hours of vaccination and that the remaining Table SIRVA requirements were met. Entitlement was granted on February 27, 2025. On July 9, 2025, he awarded $50,086.57 as a lump sum, consisting of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $86.57 in past unreimbursable expenses. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 16, 2019 at age 51 causing Table SIRVA; onset immediate/same day. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; COMPENSATED. Key evidence: immediate injection pain described as a zing/ouch, later persistent left upper arm pain, diagnoses including subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis, adhesive capsulitis, and SIRVA. Respondent contested onset based on delayed treatment and wording of immediate pain; SM found onset within 48 hours and remaining Table elements satisfied. Award $50,000 pain/suffering + $86.57 expenses = $50,086.57. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition December 22, 2020; entitlement February 27, 2025; damages July 9, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01942-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-01 Pages: 6 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/27/2025) regarding 61 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1942V TAONE RANDAZZO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine she received on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the onset of Petitioner’s pain more likely than not occurred within 48 hours of her vaccination, and that she has satisfied all 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-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 2 of 6 of the other requirements of a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. I. Relevant Procedural History In November 2023, the parties reached an impasse after about a year of settlement negotiations. See ECF No. 53. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on January 11, 2024, in which he argued that Petitioner has not established that the onset of her pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination. Rule 4(c) Report at 10-11. Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on March 15, 2024. ECF No. 59. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on April 25, 2024. ECF No. 60. The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Relevant Facts Petitioner, a 51-year-old nurse, received a flu vaccine on October 16, 2019, in Burbank, California. Ex. 1 at 2. She states that she immediately felt a “zing” and said “ouch” at the time of the injection. Ex. 24 at ¶1. She recalled “still having aches and pains” “over the following days.” Id. at ¶3. She self-treated with essential oils and ibuprofen. Id. On December 12, 2019 (57 days after her vaccination), Petitioner saw an occupational health provider for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 14 at 6. She reported “persistent pain of the left upper arm since receiving a Flu-shot on 10/16/19.” Id. She had mild tenderness and pain “on attempted R.O.M. of the left shoulder in all planes.” Id. at 7. Petitioner was advised to use ice and heat and referred to physical therapy. Id. at 8. On December 19, 2019, Petitioner began physical therapy. Ex. 8 at 18. She reported that she had a flu vaccine at work and “it has been hurting since.” Id. Petitioner also wrote on her intake form that she “rec’d flu vaccine in left upper arm, immediately felt “zinggg” with pain. Pain has not gone away, along with decreased ROM.” Id. at 20. Petitioner also saw occupational health again the same day. Ex. 14 at 10. She had a total of 18 physical therapy visits through March 5, 2020. Ex. 8 at 33. On January 16, 2020, Petitioner followed up with occupational health. Ex. 14 at 16. She reported “persistent pain in the left upper arm after receiving her flu shot on 10/16/2019.” Id. On May 22, 2020, Petitioner underwent a medical examination in connection with her worker’s compensation claim. Ex. 16 at 14. She reported that she was “recommended to receive a flu vaccine” and “felt a ‘zing’ in her arm immediately” upon vaccination.” Id. at 16. She also stated that “her arm pain continued” and that her range of motion 2 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 3 of 6 decreased. Id. The doctor’s assessment was that “she most likely suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.” Id. at 21. On March 15, 2021, Petitioner underwent an orthopedic examination in connection with her worker’s compensation claim. Ex. 21 at 29. Petitioner reported that “when she got the injection, she felt a “zing” sensation, and felt as if something weird happened during the injection, and states that it was painful.” Id. The evaluator diagnosed Petitioner with subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis, and adhesive capsulitis (related to SIRVA). Id. at 41. His discussion of his diagnosis expressly states that “the patient experienced immediate pain and later on the pain did not improve.” Id. at 41-42. Petitioner had another orthopedic evaluation on January 10, 2022. Id. at 2. The history of injury states that “the patient sustained injury . . . on 10/16/2019 when she was mandated to get the flu vaccine, during the injection she felt a zing sensation which was painful to her.” Id. III. Applicable Legal Standards 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). The Vaccine Act also requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. §13(a)(1)(A). “[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. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014). 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 Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to 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). 3 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 4 of 6 Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “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). The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. 4 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 5 of 6 Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). IV. Findings of Fact – Onset Respondent argues that 48-hour onset cannot be established. Resp. at 7. In support, Respondent points to Petitioner’s delay of approximately eight weeks before seeking medical treatment, and her “vague” reporting of “persistent pain ‘since’” her flu vaccination. Id. Further, although Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner reported a “zing” after her vaccination, he argues that this characterization cannot necessarily be deemed consistent with onset of pain. Id. However, there is ample support in the record that Petitioner experienced pain immediately after her vaccination. Petitioner recalled saying “ouch” at the time of injection, for example, clearly indicating that she experienced pain. Ex. 24 at ¶1. Further, the first time Petitioner sought treatment, she reported “persistent pain of the left upper arm since receiving a Flu-shot on 10/16/19.” Ex. 14 at 6. When she began physical therapy, Petitioner noted that she “immediately felt “zinggg” with pain.” Ex. 8 at 20. During her orthopedic evaluation, Petitioner specifically stated that “she felt a “zing” sensation, and felt as if something weird happened during the injection, and states that it was painful.” Ex. 21 at 29. The orthopedic evaluator deemed Petitioner to have experienced a SIRVA injury, specifically noting that his assessment was based, in part, upon the fact that she “experienced immediate pain and later on the pain did not improve.” Ex. 21 at 41-42. While Respondent attempts to characterize the “zing” reported by Petitioner as something other than pain, the medical records are clear that Petitioner did, in fact, specify that the sensation was both immediate and painful. Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. V. Ruling on Entitlement A. Requirements for Table SIRVA I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that her pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii)-(iii). Respondent has not contested Petitioner’s proof on the remaining elements of a Table SIRVA. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence to establish that she suffered a Table SIRVA injury. 5 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 64 Filed 04/01/25 Page 6 of 6 B. Additional Requirements for Entitlement Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of injury, and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D). The vaccine record shows that Petitioner received an influenza vaccination in her left deltoid on October 16, 2019 in Burbank, CA. Ex. 1 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United States or its territories). Additionally, Petitioner has stated that she has not filed any civil action or received any compensation for her vaccine-related injury, and there is no evidence to the contrary. See Ex. 13; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Finally, Petitioner’s medical records reveal that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine injury for more than six months, and Respondent does not argue otherwise. See e.g., Ex. 21 at 29; Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act. Conclusion Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. A separate damages order will be issued. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01942-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-11 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/09/2025) regarding 69 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 73 Filed 08/11/25 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1942V TAONE RANDAZZO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 9, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo 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”) following an influenza vaccination she received on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On February 27, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On July 8, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,086.57, comprised of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $86.57 for past inreimburseable expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. 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-01942-UNJ Document 73 Filed 08/11/25 Page 2 of 5 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,086.57, comprised of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $86.57 for past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 73 Filed 08/11/25 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS TAONE RANDAZZO, Petitioner, v. No. 20-1942V Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 16, 2019. See Petition at 1. On January 11, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”) recommending compensation be denied and the case be dismissed. ECF No. 55. On January 18, 2024, the Court issued a non-PDF scheduling order requiring petitioner to file a motion for ruling on the record regarding entitlement, “specifically addressing the issue of onset,” and for respondent to respond to the motion thereafter. On March 15, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record and on April 25, 2024, respondent filed his response to the motion. ECF No. 59, 60. On February 27, 2025, the Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 73 Filed 08/11/25 Page 4 of 5 Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 61.1 I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $86.57. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $50,086.57, to be paid 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s February 27, 2025, entitlement decision. 2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future, unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01942-UNJ Document 73 Filed 08/11/25 Page 5 of 5 through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division COLLEEN C. HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ ELIZABETH A. ANDARY ELIZABETH A. ANDARY Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 616-9824 E-mail: Elizabeth.A.Andary@usdoj.gov Dated: July 8, 2025 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01942-cl-extra-11118001 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-11 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10651414 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1942V TAONE RANDAZZO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 9, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo 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”) following an influenza vaccination she received on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On February 27, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On July 8, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,086.57, comprised of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $86.57 for past inreimburseable expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. 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). Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,086.57, comprised of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $86.57 for past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS TAONE RANDAZZO, Petitioner, v. No. 20-1942V Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 22, 2020, Taone Randazzo (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 16, 2019. See Petition at 1. On January 11, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”) recommending compensation be denied and the case be dismissed. ECF No. 55. On January 18, 2024, the Court issued a non-PDF scheduling order requiring petitioner to file a motion for ruling on the record regarding entitlement, “specifically addressing the issue of onset,” and for respondent to respond to the motion thereafter. On March 15, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record and on April 25, 2024, respondent filed his response to the motion. ECF No. 59, 60. On February 27, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 61. 1 I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $86.57. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following 2: a lump sum payment of $50,086.57, to be paid 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s February 27, 2025, entitlement decision. 2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future, unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division COLLEEN C. HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ ELIZABETH A. ANDARY ELIZABETH A. ANDARY Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 616-9824 E-mail: Elizabeth.A.Andary@usdoj.gov Dated: July 8, 2025 3