VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00051
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00051
Petitioner: Jane Brennom
Filed: 2021-01-05
Decided: 2023-11-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-01-16
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 5, 2021, Jane Brennom filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on January 16, 2019. Ms. Brennom was 67 years old at the time of vaccination and had a history of multiple shoulder issues, including osteoarthritis, frozen shoulder, and prior shoulder surgeries. She reported left shoulder pain beginning shortly after the January 16, 2019, vaccination. Medical records from March 2019 indicated inflammation and bursitis possibly related to the injection site, and a diagnosis of SIRVA was made in April 2019, at which time she received a cortisone injection. She reported significant improvement by June 2019, when she received a second cortisone injection. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, onset details beyond "shortly after the vaccination," or any expert reports submitted by the petitioner, other than noting an expert report was submitted addressing causation and sequela. The respondent argued that Ms. Brennom failed to meet the Vaccine Act's severity requirement, which mandates that the residual effects of the injury must persist for more than six months post-vaccination. The Special Master noted significant gaps in treatment, including a period of over one year between June 2019 and June 2020. While Ms. Brennom reported renewed pain in June 2020 and again in 2021 and 2022, the Special Master found that the evidence did not sufficiently link this later pain to the January 2019 vaccine injury, citing the possibility of degenerative changes noted in an earlier MRI and her pre-existing shoulder conditions. The Special Master concluded that Ms. Brennom failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury persisted for the required six months. Consequently, the case was dismissed. The petition was filed on January 5, 2021, and the decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on November 13, 2023. Petitioner was represented by Jessica Anne Olins of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, and Respondent was represented by Christine Mary Becer of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jane Brennom, age 67, received an influenza vaccine on January 16, 2019, and alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The public decision does not specify the theory of causation beyond the general allegation of SIRVA, nor does it detail the mechanism of injury or name specific experts. The core issue was whether Petitioner met the Vaccine Act's severity requirement, which mandates residual effects of the injury persist for more than six months post-vaccination. Petitioner reported pain starting shortly after vaccination and received a SIRVA diagnosis and cortisone injections in April and June 2019, reporting improvement. However, the record showed significant treatment gaps, including over a year between June 2019 and June 2020. Later complaints of shoulder pain in June 2020 and subsequent years were not sufficiently linked to the 2019 vaccine, with the Special Master noting pre-existing conditions and degenerative changes as potential alternative causes. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, dismissed the claim on November 13, 2023, finding Petitioner failed to prove the injury's residual effects lasted more than six months. Petitioner was represented by Jessica Anne Olins, and Respondent by Christine Mary Becer.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00051-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/06/2023) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-51V
UNPUBLISHED
JANE BRENNOM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 6, 2023
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
Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On January 5, 2021, Jane Brennom 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
January 16, 2019. Petition at 1-2.
On June 14, 2022, Respondent filed Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation,
arguing (among other things) that Petitioner cannot meet the Vaccine Act’s “severity”
requirement. An Order was issued requiring Petitioner to show cause why this claim
should not be dismissed for failure to establish injury severity. Order to Show Cause, ECF
No. 33. Petitioner responded on October 11, 2022. Petitioner’s Response to Order to
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-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 7
Show Cause and Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Severity
(“Response”), ECF No. 39.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner has not established that she
suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and therefore dismissal
of the claim is warranted.
I. Procedural History
Shortly after filing her Petition, Ms. Brennom filed declarations from herself and her
husband, plus the medical records required by the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-16, ECF Nos.
6-8, 10; see Section 11(c). On March 18, 2021, the case was activated and assigned to
the Special Processing Unit. ECF No. 11.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report a year later, opposing compensation
because of an inability to show severity. Rule 4(c) Report at 1-2 (citing Section
11(c)(1)(D)). In particular, given an intervening left arm injury from a blood draw and a
year-long gap in treatment from early June 2019 (less than five months post-vaccination)
until late June 2020 (more than one year later), “[i]t cannot be assumed that the shoulder
pain reported on June 30, 2020, was related to her flu vaccine on January 16, 2019.” Id.
at 5. Petitioner maintains in reaction that she can establish severity. Response at 21.
II. Factual Background
The medical records reveal that Petitioner was sixty seven years old at the time of
vaccination, and had previously suffered from conditions including osteoarthritis involving
multiple joints, herpes zoster without complication, type 2 diabetes, psoriasis, basal cell
carcinoma, obesity, cervical stenosis, frozen shoulder, and shoulder bursitis. See, e.g.,
Ex. 6 at 23-24; Ex. 16 at 49; Ex. 11 at 5. She underwent multiple surgeries including three
right shoulder arthroscopic surgeries in 2011 through 2013. Ex. 6 at 24; Ex. 11 at 6.
Petitioner was regularly seen by a rheumatologist for her osteoarthritis, the symptoms of
which included fatigue, swelling in the knees and fingers, and pain in the lower back,
knee, toes, neck, and shoulders. Ex. 6 at 5 (August 6, 2018 rheumatology visit). In her
affidavit,
On January 16, 2019, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 17 at 7.
Twice later that winter - on January 22, 2019, and February 4, 2019 - Petitioner saw her
rheumatologist, but did not report shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 30-37, 49- 51. But she reported
the pain at a subsequent rheumatology visit on February 21, 2019.
An MRI of Petitioner’s left shoulder performed on March 4, 2019, revealed a partial
thickness supraspinatus tear, moderate infraspinatus and teres minor muscle edema, a
2

Case 1:21-vv-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 3 of 7
SLAP tear that was “likely degenerative”, mild osteoarthritis, mild subacromial and
subdeltoid bursitis, and “severe infraspinatus tendinopathy”. Ex. 6 at 57. The muscle
edema and bursitis were noted as possibly related to the injection. Id. There were also
signs of severe infraspinatus tendinopathy, moderate infraspinatus and teres minor
muscle edema. Id.
On March 25, 2019, Petitioner returned to her rheumatologist who noted that the
MRI showed inflammation and bursitis “possibl[y] related to the injection site” or early
brachial plexus neuropathy. Ex. 6 at 40-45.
Petitioner was next seen by Dr. Mark Frankle at the Florida Orthopaedic Institute
on April 10, 2019, for left shoulder pain, which she reported had begun at the time of her
January vaccination. Ex. 2 at 8. A physical exam showed mild to moderate range of motion
restrictions but full strength. Ex. 2 at 10-12. She was diagnosed with a SIRVA and a
cortisone injection was administered. Id. at 12.
Several months later, on June 4, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Frankle and
reported 75% improvement. Ex. 2 at 6. Dr. Frankle now noted that Petitioner “has made
excellent gains both subjective[ly] and objectively since her last visit”, but that she wanted
to try another injection. Id. A second cortisone injection was administered at that time. Id.
at 6-7.
After a three-month gap in treatment, Petitioner saw her primary care provider, Dr.
Beth Belof-Jasko, on August 6, 2019. Ex. 16 at 91. The record notes that Petitioner had
“complication of flu shot- bursitis of left shoulder this past winter,” but includes no mention
of ongoing or existing pain. Id. Then, after a lengthier gap, Petitioner returned to her
primary care physician in February 2020 - but for left elbow pain. Ex. 16 at 139. She now
reported that she had blood drawn three weeks prior and her left elbow has been sore
and tender since that time. She again made no mention of her prior SIRVA concerns.
After yet another treatment gap (and now and 18 months post-vaccination),
Petitioner returned to Dr. Frankle on June 30, 2020, complaining of left shoulder pain and
seeking another steroid injection. Ex. 2 at 14. She now reported her pain as eight out of
ten at that time, and another cortisone injection was administered. Id. at 15-16. She was
assessed with an inflamed rotator cuff with a history of an underlying vaccination causing
the need to treat.
A year later (June 2, 2021), she returned to orthopedist for a follow-up regarding
her left shoulder. Ex. 18 at 8-10. She reported that she was still experiencing shoulder
pain, and rated it as eight out of ten. Id. at 9. Further, Petitioner gave “a history of having
3

Case 1:21-vv-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 4 of 7
had a vaccine Administration into her left arm” and “feels she is currently having a flare
up.” Id. An examination showed impingement symptomatology, but no reduced range of
motion. Id. at 10.
Petitioner was again seen for shoulder pain on August 3, 2022. Ex. 23 at 12-14.
The record notes that Petitioner “has been having pain in her shoulder for a couple of
years.” Id. at 14. She was diagnosed with tendinitis and mild-to-moderate degenerative
changes. Petitioner had a follow-up for her shoulder pain on September 14, 2022. Ex. 23
at 7. The record notes that Petitioner’s shoulder pain was “secondary to a flu vaccine
given in her left deltoid in 1/2019 resulting in post vaccine bursitis vs post vaccine
tendonitis.” Id. at 9.
Petitioner returned to Florida Orthopaedic Institute on September 14, 2022, with
complaints of pain in her left shoulder and tendinitis of the left rotator cuff. Ex. 23 at 13.
The record states on set of the left shoulder pain was June 4, 2019, and tendinitis onset
was August 5, 2022. Id.
Petitioner has submitted three affidavits in support of her petition. Ex. 12, 14, 20.
She states that her arm pain started immediately after the injection. Ex. 14 at 1. Petitioner
further described how the pain has affected her life and her course of treatment. Id. at 1-
3. She also described how Covid impacted her ability to seek treatment, indicating that
the gaps in treatment were due in part to a desire to avoid Covid exposure. Ex. 20 at 2.
Stephen Brennom, Petitioner’s husband, also submitted an affidavit in this case.
Ex. 13. Mr. Brennom states that Petitioner first complained of shoulder pain the day after
she got vaccinated, and that she became frustrated when local providers could not
identify a reason for her pain. Id.
Petitioner also submitted an expert report addressing causation and sequela. Ex.
24.
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.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 5 of 7
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, she 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
(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
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-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 6 of 7
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.
IV. Petitioner Does Not Meet the Severity Requirement
Petitioner received her vaccine on January 16, 2019, and alleges pain that same
day. To meet the severity requirement, she must establish that she suffered the effects
of her injury through July 16, 2019 (six months after onset). The record in this case,
however, establishes pain only through early June 2019, less than five months post-
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 6. Thereafter it is silent for over one year – or until June 30, 2020.
Id. at 13-14. Thus, the record supports only the premise that Petitioner’s left shoulder
injury lasted through early June 2019 – less than five months post- vaccination.
Other record evidence corroborates the conclusion that Petitioner’s injury more likely
than not had resolved within the six month post-onset period. After receiving her first
steroid injection in early April 2019, Petitioner reported 75 percent improvement. Thus, it
is reasonable to believe that the second steroid injection administered in early June 2019
likely offered a complete resolution of any remaining vaccine induced pain.
There is other evidence suggesting a recurrence of pain – but it occurs too long after
the six-month severity timeframe to conclude it was “more likely than not” related to the
SIRVA, as opposed to some other intervening event. Thus, although Petitioner again
reported left shoulder pain in June 2020, she has not provided sufficient evidence to link
this later pain to her January 2019 injury. The MRI, performed in March 2019, showed
multiple conditions which could account for Petitioner’s later pain – such as the SLAP tear
attributed to degenerative changes. And the record clearly establishes that Petitioner
suffered prior shoulder problems - including a frozen left shoulder in 2000 and
osteoarthritis and pain in multiple locations – including her shoulders.
Petitioner also argues that the gap in treatment was due to the effectiveness of the
cortisone injections. Response at 10-12. The gaps in this case, however, are not short or
only occurring after receipt of a cortisone shot. Rather, there are three between
6

Case 1:21-vv-00051-UNJ Document 42 Filed 11/13/23 Page 7 of 7
treatments, with each lasting months to a year.4 Based upon my experience adjudicating
thousands of SIRVA claims, it would be unusual for a steroid injections to provide such
lengthy periods of otherwise-temporary relief for a SIRVA injury that was persisting.
Given the above, I cannot conclude that the record preponderantly establishes
Petitioner’s injury persisted for the six months required by the Act. Such lengthy treatment
gaps are too large to ignore in this case given the facts, and allows for the possibility of
other intervening factors as more likely explanatory of Petitioner’s subsequent shoulder
complaints than her winter 2019 injury.
Conclusion
Because Petitioner has failed to meet the severity requirement set forth in Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i), Petitioner cannot establish entitlement, and therefore I must DISMISS
his claim in its entirety. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix
B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accord with this
Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Petitioner did not seek treatment or report shoulder problems during the following periods: June 4, 2019 to June
30, 2020; June 30, 2020 to June 2, 2021; and June 2, 2021 to August 3, 2022.
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
7