VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00025
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00025
Petitioner: Rosalind Cummings
Filed: 2021-01-04
Decided: 2025-06-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-18
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 4, 2021, Rosalind Cummings filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 18, 2018 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Her case turned on the Table SIRVA requirement that shoulder pain begin within forty-eight hours after vaccination.

Respondent challenged the onset proof. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the medical records and the parties' arguments and concluded that the evidence did not preponderantly show onset within the Table window.

On June 11, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the Table SIRVA claim. No compensation award appears in the public record reviewed.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on October 18, 2018, allegedly causing Table SIRVA; DISMISSED. Chief SM Corcoran found petitioner had not proven shoulder-pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination, defeating the Table SIRVA claim. No award. Petition filed January 4, 2021; decision June 11, 2025. Attorney: David John Carney, Green & Schafle.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00025-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-13
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/30/2025) regarding 40 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-25V
ROSALIND CUMMINGS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 30, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CASE1
On January 4, 2021, Rosalind Cummings 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 Table injury—a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)—as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on October 18, 2018. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, dated June
23, 2023 (ECF No. 35) (“Mot.”) at 1–2. She also contends in the alternative that a second
vaccination (administered slightly over a year later—on November 18, 2019) exacerbated
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 Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 9
the SIRVA attributable to the 2018 vaccination. Id. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the (“SPU”).
For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Petitioner has not established by
preponderant evidence that the onset of any SIRVA attributable to the 2018 vaccination
occurred in the 48-hour timeframe required for this Table claim. Petitioner does, however,
have a potentially tenable non-Table claim for significant aggravation based on the
second, 2019 vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately fourteen months after the claim’s activation, Respondent filed a
Rule 4(c) Report challenging compensation. Respondent’s Report, dated Mar. 13, 2023
(ECF No. 33). Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to establish that she suffered
shoulder pain within 48 hours of the 2018 vaccination. Id. at 7–8. Respondent thus asserts
that Petitioner cannot meet one of the four QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA, and the
case must be dismissed. Id.; 12 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii).
Thereafter, on June 26, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record,
arguing that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for injuries related to the October 2018
and/or November 2019 flu vaccinations. See generally Motion, dated June 26, 2023 (ECF
No. 35). Respondent filed his response on August 9, 2023, maintaining that Petitioner
had failed to meet her burden of proof for a Table claim. Response, dated Aug. 9, 2023
(ECF No. 36). Petitioner filed a reply requesting a ruling in Petitioner’s favor, and/or allow
Petitioner to “obtain and file an expert report on causation”. Reply, dated Aug. 23, 2023
(ECF No. 37). This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Facts
A. Medical Records
(cid:120) Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm on October 18, 2018. Ex. 11
at 2.
(cid:120) Almost one year later—on September 17, 2019—Petitioner went to her
primary care physician (“PCP”), Dr. Albert Fink, Jr., and the record from this
visit contains the first complaints of left shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 21–29. In
particular, Petitioner informed Dr. Fink that she had felt left arm pain and
occasional weakness “for about [one] year,” although the document does
2

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 9
not specify a precise onset date (and does not otherwise link the pain to the
October 2018 vaccination). Id. at 21.
(cid:120) The physical exam performed by Dr. Fink at this time indicated
impingement, but noted that Petitioner displayed “[g]ood ROM.” Ex. 4 at 28.
Dr. Fink diagnosed Ms. Cummings with left shoulder tendonitis,
recommended that she receive a flu vaccine “this fall,” and referred her to
physical therapy (PT) (although there is no record evidence she began PT
any time in 2019). Id. at 23–24, 26, 28.
(cid:120) Petitioner had an x-ray performed on September 23, 2019. Ex. 6 at 51. The
x-rays showed “mild enthesopathy at the greater tubercle” and that the soft
tissue was “unremarkable”. Id.
(cid:120) Petitioner received a second flu vaccine on November 19, 2019, also in her
left arm. Exhibit 11 at 3.
(cid:120) On December 10, 2019, Petitioner had an unrelated appointment for foot
pain. There was no mention of shoulder pain at this visit. Ex. 9 at 6–7.
(cid:120) On December 30, 2019, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Main
Line Health for treatment of acute left shoulder pain. See generally Ex. 8.
The record from this visit notes that Petitioner had “pain in left shoulder for
1 ½ months” and it’s “constant and worse with movement”. Id. at 9.
Emergency room doctors found Petitioner had full range of motion with pain.
Id at 11. X-rays were clear. Petitioner was provided lidocaine patches and
told to follow up with her PCP. Id. at 12.
(cid:120) On February 3, 2020, Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. John Luksch, D.O.,
reporting deltoid pain since November 2018 (after the October vaccination)
that had not resolved. Ex. 2 at 7. She also noted that she had felt increased
pain since the more recent November 2019 vaccination. Dr. Luksch noted
Petitioner had “full cervical motion” and that the “contralateral shoulder has
full motion and strength.” Id. at 8.
(cid:120) On February 6, 2020, Petitioner had an MRI of the left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 7–
15. Imaging results revealed tendinosis of the rotator cuff and subacromial
subdeltoid bursitis. Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 9
(cid:120) On February 13, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Luksch for follow-up
treatment of her continuing shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 3–5. Dr. Luksch found
that Petitioner had “near – full range of motion in active and forward flexion
and abduction, plus “full cervical motion,” and that her shoulder had “full
motion and strength.” Id. at 3, 4, 8. Dr. Luksch discussed non-surgical
remedies with Petitioner, including a short course of anti-inflammatories or
a steroid injection. Id. at 4–5.
(cid:120) Petitioner had 10 physical therapy sessions with Chris Donohue, PT,
between March 5, 2020, and May 5, 2020. Ex. 8 at 8–17.
(cid:120) On June 30, 2020, Petitioner received a third dose of the flu vaccine, again
in her allegedly-affected left arm. Ex. 11 at 3.
(cid:120) On July 28, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Charles Getz at Rothman
Orthopaedics for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 4. She stated that her
complaints had begun after the November 2019 vaccination, and reported
pain radiating down the front of her shoulder. Id. Dr. Getz review previous
MRI and x-ray results and found upon physical examination that Petitioner
showed “impingement signs” and had “much more pain with biceps
provocative maneuvers”. Id. at 5. Dr. Getz gave Petitioner in injection in the
left joint, which was tolerated well. Id. Petitioner was to follow up in a week
for further recommendations.
(cid:120) Petitioner did not seek treatment again for any related issues until March
2021, when she had a follow up appointment with Dr. Getz. Ex. 14 at 10.
Dr. Getz found “no mass atrophy,” and she displayed no pain with range of
motion. Petitioner was given a repeat lidocaine injection at this visit. Id. at
10. Petitioner obtained additional treatment at Rothman Orthopaedics in
May 2021, and was prescribed Medrol. Id. at 8.
(cid:120) On July 20, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Getz for additional treatment of
continuing shoulder pain. Ex. 14 at 4–5. Upon examination, Petitioner
displayed pain with a forced external rotation. Petitioner was noted to have
had improvement with the previous lidocaine injection, and she received
another injection at this visit. Id.
(cid:120) On September 28, 2021, Petitioner again saw Dr. Getz. Ex. 17 at 4–5. Dr.
Getz ordered a new MRI and prescribed a Medrol Dosepak to help with
Petitioner’s shoulder inflammation. Id. Dr. Getz noted the temporal
relationship between her complaints and the 2019 vaccination, although he
4

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 9
deemed treatment options to be limited, and expressly discounted the
possibility of surgery as a beneficial intervention. Ex. 15 at 5.
(cid:120) On October 1, 2021, Petitioner had a second MRI on her left shoulder. Ex.
12 at 72–83. Results revealed “small excess fluid in the bursa,” and a
“partial interstitial tear” in the anterior infraspinatus. Id. at 73. It was also
noted that there was “no full-thickness rotator cuff tear”. Id. at 74.
(cid:120) Almost six months later, Petitioner returned to Dr. Getz on March 7, 2022.
Ex. 17 at 7. On physical exam, Petitioner was noted to have “near full range
of motion” and good strength. Id. at 7. Dr. Getz also noted that it appeared
that there might be “damage to the rotator cuff,” and discussed surgical
repair options. Id. at 8.
B. Other Evidence
Petitioner submitted a declaration in support of her claim. Declaration, dated
December 4, 2020, filed as Ex. 1 (ECF No. 6-1). In it, she maintains that after receipt of
the flu vaccine in October 2018, she “felt a sharp and intense pain in my left that persisted
for several months.” Declaration at 2 ¶9. She did not, however, seek immediate treatment
because she was “not one to immediately go to the doctor with every kind of ailment I
have and being in healthcare, I had some knowledge that I could treat my shoulder with
ice, heat and NSAID medications.” Id. at 3 ¶10. But after her September 2019 treatment,
her condition improved—enough to make her able to obtain a second vaccination in
November 2019. Id. at 3 ¶11.
Petitioner further alleges that she continues to experience “severe pain,
discomfort, and decreased range of motion in [her] left shoulder affecting [her] daily life,
hobbies, and work responsibilities” due to exacerbation of her 2018 vaccine-related injury.
Declaration at 2 ¶7. The shoulder pain has affected her ability to sleep, raise her arm and
carry objects. Id. Petitioner affirms that the pain has made her suffer “physically and
emotionally” and continues to cause her “tremendous difficulties” with her employment as
an IV technician.
III. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s onset (specifically pain) after the October 2018
vaccination occurred within 48 hours, as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and
Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. §
5

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 9
100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for
pain listed in the QAI).
IV. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “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, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). 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 & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 v. Sec’y
6

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 9
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 fact 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 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.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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).
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 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 a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
3 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; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his 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. Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 9
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;
(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).
ANALYSIS
Although Petitioner’s claim involves two separate vaccination events, her overall
injury is alleged to have started with a SIRVA attributable to an October 2018 vaccination.
But no Table claim can succeed based on that vaccination, because Petitioner has failed
to establish onset of 48 hours, as required by the Table.
The evidence in the record clearly establishes that Petitioner did not seek
treatment for nearly a year after her 2018 vaccination. And when she did first complain of
shoulder pain in September 2019, she was somewhat vague as to onset (stating her
sensations of pain and weakness had been present for a year—which could arguably
8

Case 1:21-vv-00025-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/13/26 Page 9 of 9
mean they predated the October 2018 vaccination). Ex. 4 at 21. Nor did she identify the
vaccination as the start of this pain (something that might allay some of the issues raised
when a claimant waits so long post-vaccination to seek treatment). And there is otherwise
no contemporaneous, objective record proof pinpointing onset within the required, two-
day period.
Too much time passing from the 2018 vaccination to a first treatment event, with
zero evidence to be found in the lengthy gap, prevents a finding of likely two-day onset.
And the only other evidentiary items Petitioner cites to in support of onset deserve little
weight. See Mot. at 17–18. Her declaration, for example, was prepared two years after
her purported onset (not to mention to support this claim’s filing), and it has no record
corroboration. Otherwise, Petitioner refers to a February 2020 visit to Dr. Luksch (Ex. 2
at 7)—and not only is the proof of onset in this record reflective of Petitioner’s personal
recitation of her history, but it identifies onset from November 2018—and hence more
than two days post-vaccination. Although the standard applied to SIRVA claims on the
onset issue is fairly liberal, not every SIRVA claim can be so preponderantly established—
and clearly in this case that standard is unmet.
At the same time, however, the record does establish that Petitioner had concerns
about a shoulder-related injury before her November 2019 vaccination. She sought
treatment for shoulder issues in the wake of that vaccination within two months of it. And
she thereafter consistently maintained that the second vaccination event had worsened
her preexisting issues.
All of this evidence is sufficient grounds for a significant aggravation claim, based
on the contention that some kind of shoulder-associated pain prior to the November 2019
vaccination was worsened thereafter due to that vaccine administration. Petitioner should,
therefore, be permitted the opportunity to pursue such a claim, although she clearly will
require expert input on this front. To that end, the matter will be transferred out of SPU so
that she can attempt to better substantiate such a non-Table claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s Table claim based on the October
2018 vaccination is hereby DISMISSED. The Petition will be transferred out of SPU to
provide Petitioner the opportunity to litigate a significant aggravation claim based on the
November 2019 vaccination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9