VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00029
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00029
Petitioner: Candice Lombardo
Filed: 2021-01-04
Decided: 2024-03-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-08
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
Candice Lombardo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on November 8, 2019. She reported pain in her left shoulder within days of the vaccination, which she attributed to the flu shot. Medical records documented pain, limited range of motion, and weakness in her left shoulder, with diagnoses including impingement syndrome, axillary nerve injury, and adhesive capsulitis. An MRI revealed an infraspinatus strain with possible tearing and inflammation. The respondent initially argued that Petitioner did not meet the severity requirement and could not establish a Table claim due to the onset timeframe. However, the Chief Special Master found that Petitioner's medical records preponderantly established onset of injury within 48 hours of vaccination, that her pain was limited to the left shoulder, and that there was no other condition to explain her symptoms. The court also found that Petitioner met the severity requirement, with symptoms persisting into the spring of 2020, and that she satisfied all other requirements for compensation. The case proceeded as a Table SIRVA claim. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages. The court awarded Candice Lombardo a lump sum payment of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00029-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-19
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/17/2023) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-29V
UNPUBLISHED
CANDICE LOMBARDO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 17, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact;
Influenza (“Flu”); Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA);
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2021, Candice Lombardo 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
November 8, 2019. 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 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 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 2 of 9
I. Relevant Procedural History
On June 2, 2022, Respondent filed a status report arguing that this case is not
appropriate for compensation and requesting 45 days to file a Rule 4(c) report. ECF No.
26. Respondent maintains that Petitioner does not meet the severity requirement of the
Vaccine Act, and cannot establish a Table claim because she has not established onset
of her injury within forty-eight hours of vaccination. Id. at 7-10. Petitioner filed a motion for
a ruling on the record on September 19, 2022. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the
Record and Brief in Support of Damages (“Mot.”), ECF No. 31. Respondent opposed the
motion on November 17, 2022, 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. 33, at 1-6. Petitioner filed a reply on November 29, 2022. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in
Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages
(“Reply”), ECF No. 34. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner’s past medical history includes reports of carpal tunnel syndrome and
chronic left breast pain related to implants which interfered with her daily activities and
work, but no reports of left shoulder issues. Ex. 1 at 123.
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder on November 8, 2019, at a
plastic surgeon’s office. Ex. 1 at 127. Three days later, on November 11, 2019, she saw
her primary care provider, Dr. Bhawna Gupta, for a previously-scheduled visit. Ex. 1 at
134, Ex. 10 at 172. She complained of left-sided breast pain that had been worsening
over the past four years, along with neck and upper back pain, and left-hand numbness.
Ex. 1 at 134-40. There was no reference to shoulder pain or a flu vaccine.
Petitioner first contacted Dr. Gupta’s office with complaints of left arm pain on
November 20, 2019, reporting that she had a flu shot on November 7, 2019. Ex. 10 at
180. The record also states that “she saw Dr. Gupta on 11/11/19 and brought the pain
up.” Id. During a call-back from Dr. Gupta, Petitioner reported that she had a flu vaccine
in her left arm, and “following that” she had “pain locally, with numbness in the left arm
and forearm [that] radiates from the left upper arm down.” Dr. Gupta prescribed a course
of prednisone. Id.
On December 1, 2019, Petitioner visited an urgent care center, reporting a month-
long history of left arm pain “that ha[d] been ongoing since she received her flu shot at
the beginning of November.” Ex. 3 at 3. She also reported limited range of motion and
weakness. Id. Bursitis and adhesive capsulitis was suspected.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 3 of 9
Petitioner subsequently called Dr. Gupta to schedule an appointment on
December 2, 2019, and noted that she was “still having significant pain in her arm since
her flu shot.” Petitioner saw Dr. Gupta that same day with reports of pain “3 days after
she got the flu shot in her L arm.” Ex. 10 at 187. She reported her pain as “whole arm”
that radiated to her upper back. Id. An examination showed reduced strength and range
of motion in her left shoulder. Id. at 189. She was diagnosed with impingement syndrome,
prescribed Mobic, Ultram, and a Medrol Dosepak. Id. at 192.
On December 6, 2019, Petitioner visited an orthopedics walk-in clinic. Ex. 4 at 18.
She reported shoulder pain radiating to her forearm that started “about day or 2: after a
flu vaccine. Id. An examination showed “slight discomfort” with abduction, and she was
diagnosed with an axillary nerve injury. Id. at 19.
Petitioner returned to the orthopedic clinic on December 16, 2019, and saw Dr.
David Martin. Ex. 4 at 11. Petitioner reported that she developed “pain and stiffness in
her left shoulder soon after a flu shot” that started “about day or 2” after the vaccination.
Id. at 11, 18. Petitioner’s shoulder was tender, and her range of motion was reduced. Dr.
Martin stated Petitioner likely had “a frozen shoulder/adhesive capsulitis” but could also
have “a bone bruise or even a small underlying hematoma or abscess….” Id. at 11.
An MRI performed on January 15, 2020, showed an infraspinatus strain, with some
possible low-grade partial tearing and associated inflammation. Ex. 1 at 171. A few days
later, she reviewed the MRI results with Dr. Martin, who noted that Petitioner had
“significant fluid in the infraspinatus which either is a borderline full-thickness tear or
perhaps even a tear at the musculotendinous junction.” Ex. 4 at 5. Dr. Martin
recommended a surgical repair. Id.
Petitioner again reported ongoing shoulder pain that “started after getting flu shot
a few months ago” to Dr. Gupta at her annual exam on January 24, 2020. Ex. 10 at 281.
She also reported that Dr. Martin stated she had a “partial tear” and needed surgery, but
she wanted to get a second opinion. Id.
Over the next ten months, Petitioner saw medical practitioners on at least two
occasions. On May 4, 2020, Petitioner had a telehealth visit with Dr. Gupta for medical
clearance to return to work at a dental office. Ex. 10 at 309. Petitioner also saw her
gynecologist at a telehealth visit on May 6, 2020, to discuss genetic testing and her
ongoing left breast pain. Ex. 8 at 100.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 4 of 9
On October 14, 2020, Petitioner called Orthopedic Specialty Group reporting
ongoing left shoulder pain and seeking a second opinion. Ex. 9 at 7. Petitioner saw Dr.
James FitzGibbons on November 10, 2020. Ex. 7 at 4. She related her pain to the 2019
flu vaccine, stating that she “had a flu shot” and from that time she “knew that something
‘was not right.’” Id. Petitioner also stated that she felt excruciating pain for eleven months
after the injection, but her shoulder improved after she took time away from work due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. An examination showed positive impingement signs and
discomfort with certain range of motion. Id. at 5. She received a Kenalog injection, and
was instructed in home exercises. Id. at 6.
Petitioner has submitted two affidavits in support of her claim. Ex. 2, 11. Therein,
she states that she received a flu vaccine on November 8, 2019, and immediately felt
pain in her shoulder. Ex. 2 at 2, Ex. 11 at 2. Petitioner also stated that her delay in seeking
additional treatment after January 2020 was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ex. 2 at 4,
Ex. 11 at 2.
Vincent Lombardo (Petitioner’s husband) and Emma Zerella (Petitioner’s mother)
also submitted affidavits. Mr. Lombardo stated that Petitioner experienced pain the day
she received the flu vaccine. Ex. 12 at 2. Ms. Zerella stated that Petitioner called her the
day she received the flu vaccine, and told her she was in significant pain. Ex. 13 at 2.
III. 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 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
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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 5 of 9
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
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
5

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 6 of 9
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. Severity Requirement
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she
suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months
after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine
Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on November 8, 2019,
and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual
symptoms continued at least through May 8, 2020 (assuming onset of pain the day of
vaccination). See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014
WL 3889070, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's injury
resolved less than two months after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred over
approximately three months, between November 11, 2019 and January 24, 2020,
followed by a ten month gap. However, when she returned for additional treatment she
specifically noted that her shoulder pain started after a flu shot. Ex. 7 at 4. Further, she
explained that she had time away from work, which assisted in a reduction of her
symptoms. Id.
Respondent argues that Petitioner did not seek treatment for her shoulder over a
ten month period, but the record establishes that she did attend several telehealth visits
and an in-person exam. Opp. at 2-3. Petitioner contends that her gap in treatment was
reasonable due to the COVID-19 pandemic and symptom improvement due to reduced
work. Further, the appointments cited by Respondent were for unrelated medical issues,
including an appointment to be cleared to work and a gynecology exam. It is
understandable that she would not mention her shoulder pain during these visits. I also
note that the COVID-19 Pandemic began that same winter, and is a reasonable
explanation for why treatment visits may have ceased for at least some of this time.
The overall record constitutes a sufficient showing of severity to meet the
preponderance evidentiary standard. It is likely that Petitioner’s symptoms persisted into
6

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 7 of 9
the spring of 2020, despite the cessation of treatment and subsequent gap. However, the
light history of treatment also suggests a mild injury - which will likely impact damages in
this case.
B. 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.
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain her Symptoms
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 she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain twelve days after her November 8,
2019, vaccination, stating that she had shoulder pain following her flu vaccine. Ex. 10 at
180. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to link her shoulder pain temporally to the flu
vaccine. See Ex. 10 at 187 (record from December 2, 2019, stating that Petitioner had
significant pain in her arm “since her flu shot”); Ex. 4 at 11, 18 (record from December 16,
2019, stating she developed pain and stiffness in her shoulder “soon after a flu shot”).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s statements are vague and never identified a
specific timeframe for onset of her shoulder symptoms. Opp. at 4-6. Even so, a finding of
proper onset can be made based on such a record. Program petitioners are not required
to marshal records setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day and hour
that their onset manifested. As noted above, Petitioner consistently linked her shoulder
pain to the November 8, 2019, flu vaccine.
Further, the relevant medical records show that Petitioner reported shoulder pain
in a relatively timely manner, when measured from the date of vaccination Thus,
Petitioner first began to complain of shoulder pain within twelve days of the vaccine and
did not attribute her pain to any other injury or cause. It is common for SIRVA petitioners
7

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 8 of 9
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, 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 her shoulder pain to the flu vaccine.
Respondent also argues that Petitioner failed to report shoulder pain on November
11, 2019, when she saw Dr. Gupta for a previously scheduled visit, undermining her
assertion that symptoms began within forty-eight hours of the vaccination. Opp. at 4. It is
not unexpected that Petitioner did not raise her shoulder pain with Dr. Gupta on November
11, as that appointment was for a specific and unrelated issue, i.e., left-sided breast pain.
Ex. 1 at 134-35.
Accordingly, 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 her Left Shoulder
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this
aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest otherwise.
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.
C. 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
November 8, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 123-27; see Section 11(c)(1)(A)
(requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration
8

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 38 Filed 12/19/23 Page 9 of 9
within the United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has
collected a civil award for her injury. Ex. 2 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil
award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
IV. Damages
Petitioner requests $85,000.00 for pain and suffering. Mot. at 30, Reply at 11. I
decline to decide damages at this time, and instead instruct the parties to discuss whether
damages can be decided informally. However, if the parties cannot come to an agreement
within 30 days, additional briefing may be ordered.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by December 18,
2023, indicating whether a brief attempt at settlement discussions would be
productive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00029-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-19
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/15/2024) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-29V
CANDICE LOMBARDO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 15, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 4, 2021, Candice Lombardo 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”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November
8, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On January 17, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for a SIRVA. On February 7, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00. Proffer
at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
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 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 5
award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as
stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $50,000.00 in the form of a check payable 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 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/19/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
CANDICE LOMBARDO,
Petitioner, No. 21-29V (ECF)
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 4, 2021, Candice Lombardo (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”), under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to
-34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on
November 8, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1, at 1.
On July 15, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
Rule 4(c) Report recommending that compensation be denied. ECF No. 28. On November 17,
2023, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1
ECF No. 35.
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 November 17, 2023 entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/19/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00 in pain and suffering
damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. This amount represent 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 $50,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Candice Lombardo: $50,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00029-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/19/24 Page 5 of 5
s/Sarah B. Rifkin
SARAH B. RIFKIN
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) 305-5997
Sarah.Rifkin@usdoj.gov
Dated: February 7, 2024
3