VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00038
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00038
Petitioner: Kristie Rinier
Filed: 2021-01-04
Decided: 2025-07-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-29
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 47500

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristie Rinier, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on October 29, 2019. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of this vaccination. The medical records indicated that her shoulder pain began immediately after the flu shot, and she reported ongoing pain and reduced range of motion. She sought treatment from her primary care provider, physical therapists, and a neurologist. The respondent initially argued that Ms. Rinier could not meet the Vaccine Act's severity requirement and that her pain did not occur within 48 hours of vaccination, nor was it solely attributable to the vaccine. However, the court found that Ms. Rinier had established the requirements for a Table SIRVA, including that her injury manifested within 48 hours of vaccination, her pain was limited to her left shoulder, and there was no other condition that better explained her symptoms. The court also found that she met the six-month severity requirement. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the parties later stipulated to damages. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Kristie Rinier $47,500.00 for pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00038-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-18
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/15/2024) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-38V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTIE RINIER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 15, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
HUMAN SERVICES, Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA); Six Month
Respondent. Severity Requirement
Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2021, Kristie Rinier 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 (“flu”) vaccine administered on
October 29, 2019. Petition at 1.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner has established that she suffered
the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and is otherwise 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-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 8
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed this matter on January 4, 2021. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report
opposing compensation on October 26, 2022. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”),
ECF No. 31. Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot meet the Vaccine Act’s “severity”
requirement, and also cannot meet the Table requirements because her pain did not
occur within 48 hours of vaccination and another condition would explain her symptoms.
Report at 6-7. On February 6, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record in
favor of the claim. Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 36.
Respondent did not file a response. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Factual Background
The medical records reveal that Petitioner was a registered nurse who previously
suffered from some other conditions, including a cervical radiculopathy that resulted in an
image-guided cervical spine injection in 2008. Ex. 3 at 1.
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder on October 29, 2019. Ex. 1 at
1. On November 29, 2019, she reported shoulder pain (beginning “immediately after the
[flu] shot”) to her primary care provider, Dr. Shirlene Moten. Ex. 2 at 1. Dr. Moten noted
that the onset of Petitioner’s pain was sudden. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with
subacromial bursitis, prescribed prednisone and Flexeril, and x-rays were ordered. Id.
Petitioner presented to her primary care provider on December 23, 2019, with
complaints including ongoing left arm pain. Ex. 7 at 9. She was referred to physical
therapy. Id. at 12-13.
On January 10, 2020, Petitioner had an initial evaluation for physical therapy. Ex.
3 at 10. She reported that her left shoulder pain and range of motion issues started
immediately after her October 29, 2019 flu vaccine. Id. She also complained of hand
numbness and pain between her third and fourth fingers of her left hand. Id. An
examination showed reduced range of motion. Id. at 8.
Petitioner attended eight physical therapy sessions between January 10 and
February 4, 2020. Ex. 3 at 5-26. Additionally, on February 4, 2020, Petitioner stated that
“her elbow has been bothering her a lot for a while now,” and that she “has been playing
phone tag with her neurologist” to make an appointment. Id. at 26.
Petitioner complained of pain, numbness, and paresthesias in her left upper arm
to neurologist Dr. Maureen Gottfried on February 19, 2020. Ex. 6 at 2. Dr. Gottfried noted
2

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 8
that Petitioner’s arm pain “started after she was given the Flu shot”, that onset was
sudden, and that it had been occurring for three and a half months. Id. An examination
showed Petitioner exhibited a decrease range of motion and tenderness to palpitation. Id.
at 3. A Medrol Dosepak and MRI were ordered. Id. at 4. The MRI was performed on
February 28, 2020, and it showed interstitial splits and tendinosis, but no other significant
pathology. Ex. 4 at 1-2.
Petitioner presented to Dr. Kevin McHale, an orthopedist, on March 11, 2020, for
left shoulder pain that had been ongoing since her October 19, 2019 flu vaccine. Ex. 3 at
1. She also stated that she had neck pain, numbness, and paresthesia extending to her
long and ring finger of her left hand. Id. An examination showed limited range of motion
with pain, positive impingement signs, but normal strength. Id. at 3. Petitioner was
diagnosed with left rotator cuff tendinitis and cervical radiculopathy, and Dr. McHale noted
that “[d]ue to persistent pain…in fingers… [p]atient has been followed by a neurologist for
cerfical radiculopathy….” Id. A subacromial steroid injection was administered and she
was directed to follow-up with a neurologist to address her radiculopathy.
Petitioner presented to D.O. Tara Vogdes on August 12, 2020, for complaints of
calf pain for two months. Ex. 7 at 5. The record also stated that Petitioner’s “[l]eft shoulder
pain occurred immediately after shot. Some limitations of [range of motion] ever since.”
Id. Referred to vascular surgeon. No mention of arm pain.
Petitioner has submitted two affidavits in support of her petition. In the first, she
explained that she continued to experience pain and tenderness at least until February 8,
2021. Ex. 5. In the second, she detailed her course of treatment and stated that she
received a vaccination at the start of an overnight shift on October 29, 2019, and that she
had pain and stiffness “by the time my manager arrived the next morning…” Ex. 8 at 1.
Additionally, Petitioner stated that she did no seek medical treatment until November 29,
2019 because she “anticipated and hoped that the pain and stiffness …would subside.”
Id. at 2. Further, she was self-treating her pain with an at-home exercise program and
medications. Id. Petitioner also explained that she was in a car accident in 2008 and
developed syringomyelia “around C5-C6”, but that she has no recollection of being
diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 3.
Joseph Ignatovig, Petitioner’s cohabiting partner, also submitted an affidavit in
support of her claim. Ex. 9. He states that he recalls Petitioner returning from work on
October 30, 2019, and complaining of severe pain since the flu shot hours earlier. Id. at
1. Further, he states that Petitioner continues to experience pain, soreness, weakness,
and limited range of motion in that arm. Id. at 2.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 4 of 8
Teresa Eames, Petitioner’s coworker, submitted an affidavit as well. Ex. 10. She
also recalled Petitioner reporting shoulder pain immediately following her vaccination. Id.
at 1.
III. Legal Standard
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
In particular, a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the
Table criteria (i.e. a Table injury), in which case causation is presumed, or an injury
shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. If a petitioner establishes
a Table injury the burden shifts to respondent to establish a more likely alternative
cause. Section 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1)(C)(i), 14(a). If a petitioner cannot establish a Table
injury, or she may pursue causation-in-fact under the legal standard set forth in Althen
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
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
4

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 5 of 8
(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).
In addition to causation, a petitioner must also meet the requirements
establishing that the vaccine received is “covered” by the Program, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement.3 With regard to
severity, a petitioner must show that she suffered the residual effects or complications
of her injury or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.
§ 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see Song v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65-66
(1994), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that a petitioner must demonstrate
the six-month severity requirement by a preponderance of the evidence). Finding that
petitioner has met the severity requirement cannot be based on petitioner's word alone,
though a special master need not base their finding solely on medical records. Section
13(a)(1); see Colon v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 156 Fed. Cl. 534, 541 (2021).
Severity must be established regardless of whether the claim arises under the Table or
is a causation-in-fact claim.
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 October 29, 2019,
and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual
symptoms continued at least through April 29, 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).
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 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 6 of 8
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred over
approximately four and a half months, or until March 11, 2020. The records also state that
she experienced range of motions issues at least until August 12, 2020. Ex. 7 at 5.
Respondent argues that Petitioner did not seek treatment for her shoulder after
March 11, 2020, and that there are no additional reports of shoulder pain after that time.
Report at 6-7. However, as stated above, there are references to continued sequelae of
Petitioner’s SIRVA at least until August 2020.Such a record is adequate evidence of
severity to meet the preponderance evidentiary standard. It is likely that Petitioner’s
symptoms persisted into, and just beyond, the spring of 2020, despite the cessation of
treatment and subsequent gap. However, the consistently light history of treatment
suggests a mild injury - which will impact what damages are proper.
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 claims that Petitioner had a history
of radiculopathy, and she cannot meet this requirement. Report at 7. Petitioner explained
in her affidavit that she was diagnosed with Syringomyclia following a car accident in
2008. Further, she states that she has no recollection of being diagnosed with
radiculopathy. Ex. 8 at 3. The earlier accident may explain certain symptoms, including
the tingling and numbness in her fingertips, but would not completely explain the
symptoms associated with Petitioner’s SIRVA, including pain and reduced range of
motion.
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 on November 29, 2019, one month
after her vaccination, and noted that the pain began “immediately after the [flu] shot.” Ex.
2 at 1. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to link her shoulder pain temporally to the flu
vaccine. See Ex. 3 at 10 (record from January 10, 2020, stating that Petitioner’s pain and
6

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 7 of 8
range of motion deficits started immediately after her October 29, 2019 flu vaccine); Ex.
6 at 2 (record from February 19, 2020, stating her pain started after a flu shot).
Respondent argues that Petitioner has no contemporaneous records falling within
the 48-hour post-vaccination period. Report at 7. Even so, a finding of proper onset can
be made based on such a record. Program petitioners are not required to seek medical
care within 48-hours of vaccination. Further, as noted above, Petitioner consistently linked
her shoulder pain to the September flu vaccine.
Additionally, the relevant medical records show that Petitioner reported shoulder
pain in a relatively timely manner, when measured from the date of vaccination. Further,
she stated in her affidavit that her delay was because she hoped her pain and stiffness
would subside. 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. 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.
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. References to pain and numbness in Petitioner’s extremities
are present in the record, however they are likely do to an unrelated issue and not her
SIRVA.
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 argues that Petitioner had a history of cervical radiculopathy
and the symptoms are consistent with that condition. Report at 7. However, this is not
accurate. As described above, Petitioner had a history of pain associated with a car
accident in 2008. Further, her symptoms, including pain and reduced range of motion,
are consistent with a SIRVA.
Admittedly, pain reported in Petitioner’s elbow and finger at times may be unrelated
to Petitioner’s SIRVA – but that kind of complaint or injury can be disregarded in
7

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/18/24 Page 8 of 8
calculating damages. 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
her complaints and treatment efforts were aimed at that. Accordingly, preponderant
evidence supports this Table element as well.
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 October
29, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 1; 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 her injury. Ex. 5; 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.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00038-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-23
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/13/2025) regarding 48 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 52 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-38V
KRISTIE RINIER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 13, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 4, 2021, Kristie Rinier 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 October 29,
2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On May 15, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for GBS. On June 13, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation indicating Petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00 for pain and suffering.
Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation (“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 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 52 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $47,500.00 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 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 52 Filed 07/23/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
KRISTIE RINIER, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-38V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 4, 2021, Kristie Rinier (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 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 Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine she received on October 29, 2019. Petition at 1. On December 16, 2024, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is
not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a Table injury for SIRVA after a
flu vaccination. ECF No. 31. On May 15, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on
Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. 1 ECF No. 37.
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 May 15, 2024 entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00038-UNJ Document 52 Filed 07/23/25 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award and Recommended Payments Following Judgment
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 $47,500.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting 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-00038-UNJ Document 52 Filed 07/23/25 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Mitchell Jones
MITCHEL JONES
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) 305-1748
mitchell.jones@usdoj.gov
DATED: June 13, 2025
3