VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00047
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00047
Petitioner: Marnie Schmaltz
Filed: 2021-01-04
Decided: 2024-03-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50159

AI-assisted case summary:
Marnie Schmaltz, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. Approximately two weeks later, on October 29, 2019, she presented with left shoulder pain that radiated down her arm, and was diagnosed with impingement syndrome. Her medical records documented pain, inflammation, and dysfunction in her left shoulder, including findings of bursitis and tendinosis on an MRI. She underwent physical therapy and received steroid injections, which provided temporary relief. The court found that her injury met the criteria for Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, with onset within 48 hours of vaccination. The respondent initially opposed compensation, arguing that Petitioner did not meet the severity requirement and did not establish a Table injury. However, the court found that Petitioner's symptoms persisted and that the gap in treatment was reasonably explained by the COVID-19 pandemic and financial hardship. The court ruled that Petitioner was entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. Subsequently, on March 19, 2024, the court awarded Marnie Schmaltz $50,159.12 in compensation, comprised of $49,500.00 for pain and suffering and $659.12 for past unreimbursable expenses, based on a proffer agreed to by both parties.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00047-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-27
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/22/2023) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-47V
UNPUBLISHED
MARNIE SCHMALTZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 22, 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);
Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2021, Marnie Schmaltz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on October 16, 2019. Petition at 2-3. 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-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the claim’s initiation, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation. Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 26) at 6-16. Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling
on the record with regard to entitlement on August 22, 2022. Memorandum of Law in
Support of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Mot.”), ECF No. 31. Respondent
opposed the motion on October 27, 2022, arguing that Petitioner does not meet the
severity requirement of the Vaccine Act and does not establish that she suffered a Table
injury. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”),
ECF No. 34, at 6-10. Petitioner filed a reply on October 14, 2022. Reply to Respondent’s
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Reply”),
ECF No. 36.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder on October 16, 2019. Ex. 9 at
2. She had no history of prior left shoulder pain or issues. Ex. 4 at 23. Almost two weeks
later, on October 29, 2019, Petitioner presented to her primary care physician with
complaints of left shoulder pain that was “shooting pain down her arm and fingers” since
receiving her flu vaccine. Ex. 4 at 15. She was diagnosed with impingement syndrome
and possibly an injury to the supraspinatus. Id. at 16.
Petitioner underwent an MRI on November 8, 2019. Ex. 4 at 31. The MRI showed
hypertrophic changes of the acromioclavicular joint, fluid in the bursa compatible with
bursitis, mild tendinosis, and glenohumeral joint effusion. Ex. 4 at 31.
On November 18, 2019, Petitioner had an initial orthopedic evaluation of her left
shoulder with Dr. Kurt Hirshorn. Ex. 2 at 16. She stated that her shoulder was “bothering
her” “ever since she had this [flu] shot”. Id. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner’s MRI
showed impingement along with structural tears. Id. at 17. She was diagnosed with
impingement syndrome, prescribed prednisone, and received a steroid injection. Id. at
18.
Petitioner began physical therapy on December 16, 2019. Ex. 2 at 14. At that time,
she reported pain in her shoulder, numbness, tingling in her left fingertips, and
hypersensitivity to cold. Id. Petitioner attended three physical therapy sessions between
December 16 and January 16, 2020. At her final physical therapy sessions, she reported
that she was doing better and had considerably less pain. Id. at 10-12.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 3 of 8
Petitioner was next seen on January 21, 2020, by her orthopedist. Ex. 2 at 9. She
reported that the subacromial injection had worn off and she had constant aching,
popping, and snapping in her left shoulder. Id. She was diagnosed with persistent
subacromial impingement and was recommended to undergo surgical intervention.
On March 3, 2020, Petitioner underwent a breast mammogram and ultrasound.
Ex. 4 at 29. There is no record of reports of shoulder pain. Id. Three weeks later, Petitioner
presented to her primary care physician complaining of sore throat, headache, fatigue,
and diarrhea. Ex. 4 at 11. There is no indication that Petitioner mentioned shoulder pain
at that time.
There is a subsequent eighteen-months gap in the records. On July 12, 2021,
Petitioner again sought treatment for her left shoulder from Dr. Hirshorn. Ex. 10 at 6. She
reported increased pain over the past couple weeks, and that she may have “aggravated
her shoulder at work by doing some heavy lifting.” Id. The record also states that she did
not have much improvement with physical therapy, however the “[p]rior cortisone injection
[on] 11/18/2019 did improve her symptoms temporarily.” Dr. Hirshorn also noted that
Petitioner had “almost a 3 year history of left shoulder pain and dysfunction….” Id. at 8.
Petitioner received a steroid injection, was diagnosed with impingement, and scheduled
a second MRI.
III. Declarations
Petitioner submitted two declarations in support of her petitioner. Ex. 7, Ex. 11.
Petitioner described the onset of her injury and her course of treatment. Petitioner stated
that, during her last physical therapy session, she was advised there was nothing further
that could be done until surgical intervention. Further, she had not yet scheduled surgery
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ex. 7 at 2. In Petitioner’s supplemental affidavit,
Petitioner stated that her injury still requires surgery, however she cannot currently afford
the cost or necessary rehabilitation period. Ex. 1 at 1-2.
Petitioner’s daughter, Tiffany Selke, also submitted a declaration in support of this
petition. Ex. 13. She further explained the pain her mother experienced and the course of
treatment.
IV. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
3

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 4 of 8
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
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
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-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 5 of 8
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is
“consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the
individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A. 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 16, 2019,
and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual
symptoms continued at least through April 16, 2020. 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 Guillain-Barré syndrome resolved less than two months
after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred over
approximately three months, between October 29, 2019 and January 21, 2020, followed
by an eighteen month gap. However, when she returned for additional treatment she
specifically recalled that the earlier cortisone injection received in November 2019
5

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 6 of 8
temporarily improved her symptoms, suggesting at some point its effects wore off. Ex. 10
at 7. Further, her orthopedist noted that Petitioner had a long history of left shoulder pain
and dysfunction, indicating that she was seeking treatment for the 2019 shoulder injury
(although the history length, if literally true, would have begun prior to vaccination).
Respondent argues that Petitioner voluntarily stopped treating her shoulder in
January of 2020, and there is no evidence that she was simply waiting to pursue surgical
intervention. Opp. at 6-7. Petitioner contends that her gap in treatment was reasonable
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financial hardship, and rehabilitation requirements
associated with surgical intervention. Further, she states in her declaration that she was
advised additional physical therapy would not be fruitful and surgical intervention was the
best path forward. Reply at 3.
Respondent notes in reaction that Petitioner had two intervening medical
appointments that did not mention shoulder pain in the winter of 2020. Opp. at 11. The
cited appointments were, however, for unrelated medical issues, including an urgent care
visit 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 late-
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 barely-sufficient showing of severity to meet the
preponderance evidentiary standard. It is likely that Petitioner’s symptoms persisted into
the spring of 2020, despite the cessation of treatment and subsequent gap. However, not
only does such a light history of treatment suggest a mild injury, but the gap is so lengthy
that it is difficult to conclude treatment after it pertains to the SIRVA itself. Such
considerations will 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
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.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 7 of 8
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The medical records establishes onset of injury close-in-time to vaccination.
Petitioner first sought treatment approximately on October 29, 2019, less than two weeks
after her vaccination, with complaints of shoulder pain since receiving the flu shot. Ex. 4
at 15.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Respondent claims that Petitioner cannot establish that her pain was limited to her
shoulder because she also reported neurological symptoms such as numbness and
tingling in the fingers of her left hand. Opp. at 9-10. While Respondent’s argument has
merit, it ultimately fails to rebut Petitioner’s Table showing.
The record contains two reports of non-shoulder pain complaints, but also
consistently identifies shoulder pain in Petitioner’s left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 15, Ex. 4 at 15.
Petitioner’s complaints, and the diagnoses, are also focused on the shoulder. See, e.g.,
Ex. 4 at 15 (October 29, 2019, record diagnosing Petitioner with impingement syndrome).
Admittedly, pain reported in Petitioner’s arm and numbness may be unrelated to
Petitioner’s SIRVA – but that kind of complaint or injury can be addressed when
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.
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 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.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 8 of 8
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on October
16, 2019, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 9 at 2; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt
of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for his injury. Ex. 8; 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 record, I find preponderant evidence that Petitioner satisfies
the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA, and 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-00047-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-19
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/16/2024) regarding 45 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-47V
MARNIE SCHMALTZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 16, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 4, 2021, Meghan Murphy 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 16,
2019. Petition at 2-3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On September 22, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On February 15, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,159.12
(comprised of $49,500.00 for pain and suffering and $659.12 for past unreimbursable
expenses). Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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-00047-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 5
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.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner: A lump sum
payment of $50,159.12 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner (comprised of
$49,500.00 for pain and suffering, $659.12 for past unreimbursable expenses); and
These amounts represent 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-00047-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/19/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
MARNIE SCHMALTZ, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-47V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 4, 2021, Marnie Schmaltz (“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”), as amended. The petition alleges that as a result of receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 16, 2019, petitioner suffered from a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). See Petition at 2-3. On May 17, 2022, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that
this case was not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act. ECF No. 26. The
parties subsequently submitted briefs on entitlement, and on September 22, 2023, Chief Special
Master Corcoran 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 September 22, 2023 entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/19/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $49,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). 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 $659.12. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts 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 Chief Special Master Corcoran’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $50,159.12, in
the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Marnie Schmaltz: $50,159.12
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 1:21-vv-00047-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/19/24 Page 5 of 5
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
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Meghan R. Murphy
MEGHAN R. MURPHY
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) 616-4264
meghan.r.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: February 15, 2024
3