VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00055
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00055
Petitioner: Ellen Rodriguez
Filed: 2021-01-05
Decided: 2022-11-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-14
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 90968

AI-assisted case summary:
Ellen Rodriguez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 14, 2018. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. After a ruling confirming the vaccination occurred in her left arm, the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating they would not contest entitlement. The respondent conceded that Ms. Rodriguez satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Based on the respondent's position and the evidence, the court found Ms. Rodriguez entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties submitted a proffer for damages. The respondent proposed an award of $90,968.71, which included $87,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,468.71 for unreimbursed medical expenses. Ms. Rodriguez agreed with this proffered award. The court accepted the proffer and awarded Ms. Rodriguez a lump sum payment of $90,968.71 for all damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00055-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-26
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/23/2022) regarding 30 Scheduling Order, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 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-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0055V
UNPUBLISHED
ELLEN RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 23, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 5, 2021, Ellen Rodriguez 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Table, after receiving the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 14, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 19.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine was most likely
administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, as alleged.
1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the claim’s initiation, Ms. Rodriguez filed the affidavit and medical records
required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-11, ECF Nos. 1, 5 (Notice of Filing for CD
received on Jan. 25, 2021), 9; see Section 11(c). On April 14, 2021, the case was
activated and assigned to the Special Processing Unit (OSM’s process for attempting to
resolve certain, likely-to-settle claims (the “SPU”)). ECF No. 11.
On May 12, 2022, Respondent indicated that he wished to file a Rule 4(c) Report
and to engage in informal discussions regarding the appropriate amount of compensation
in this case. ECF No. 23. Because the vaccine record indicates Petitioner received the flu
vaccine in her right (opposing) deltoid, rather than her left deltoid as alleged, the parties
requested a factual finding regarding the site of vaccination. Joint Motion for Fact Ruling
(“Motion”), filed July 11, 2022, ECF No. 26. In response to an email inquiry, Respondent
confirmed that he still planned to file a Rule 4(c) Report in this case, after I address the
situs issue. See Informal Remark, dated July 29, 2022.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her
injured left shoulder, rather than her right shoulder as the vaccine record indicates.
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 7
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 7
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the finding regarding site of vaccination after a complete review of the
record to include all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically,
I note the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination in 2017 and 2018, Petitioner suffered significant
radiculopathy, lower back pain, difficulty walking, severe neck pain and loss
of head control. Exhibits 6, 8. After reporting improvement in early January
2018, she was discharged from physical therapy (“PT”). Exhibit 8 at 3-4.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal during a visit to her
allergist on November 14, 2018. Exhibit 4 at 30-31. The vaccine record – a
list of three vaccines received in 2015-18 - indicates the flu vaccine was
administered in her right deltoid, rather than left deltoid. At the bottom of this
form, it is noted that the record was “generated by eClinicalWorks EMR/PM
Software.” Id.
• Two days post-vaccination, it appears Petitioner called an individual at her
allergist’s clinic complaining of pain and an inability to lift her arm after
receiving her flu shot. Exhibit 4 at 33. Although this record was created on
November 27th, the record itself indicates the call was placed on November
16th – when the author was not at work. The record does not identify the
arm being discussed. Id.
• On November 26, 2018, Petitioner visited an orthopedist for left shoulder
pain which began two weeks earlier after a flu shot. Exhibit 10 at 20. The
orthopedist administered a cortisone injection and recommended she
attend PT. Id.
• That same day (November 26th), Petitioner attended PT for left shoulder
pain, weakness, and heaviness. Exhibit 15 at 11. There is no mention of the
flu vaccine or any other cause for her pain. Id. at 11-14. Petitioner estimated
the level of her pain as seven out of ten: five at best and ten at worst. Id. at
11.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 5 of 7
• After her visit to the orthopedist and PT, Petitioner called her allergist,
providing an update on her shoulder injury following receipt of the flu
vaccine and indicating she would call the CDC to see if it had been reported.
Exhibit 4 at 32 (November 26th call).
• By her fourth PT session on December 4th, Petitioner reported “significant
improvement” in her left shoulder pain. Exhibit 15 at 5.
• On June 27, 2019, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist, complaining of left
shoulder pain which started approximately six months earlier after a flu shot.
Exhibit 10 at 19. It was noted that she had obtained significant improvement
after a corticosteroid inject and PT, but that her pain had returned in May
2019. The orthopedist recommended Petitioner undergo an MRI. Id.
• Performed on July 11th, the MRI revealed “[a]cromioclavicular osteoarthritis
with trace subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis.” Exhibit 10 at 57.
• Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on July 17th, to discuss the results of
her MRI. Exhibit 10 at 18. At this visit, the onset of her left shoulder pain
was again linked to “a flu shot in the left shoulder.” Id. The orthopedist
administered a second cortisone injection. Id.
• Petitioner continued to attend PT and seek orthopedic treatment of her left
shoulder pain through the remainder of 2019 and early 2020. Exhibit 7;
Exhibit 10 at 12-17.
• In her affidavit, executed on January 25, 2021, Petitioner indicated that she
received the flu vaccine in her left deltoid on November 14, 2018, at her
allergist’s clinic. Exhibit 11 at ¶ 3.
The above medical entries establish that when seeking medical treatment on
multiple occasions during the year and a half following the November 2018 vaccination,
Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain attributed to that vaccination. She also
sought treatment close in time to her injury – reporting her vaccine-related injury to the
administering clinic two days post-vaccination and visiting an orthopedist less than two
weeks later. Petitioner consistently reported that her left shoulder pain began after her flu
shot administered in the same arm.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 6 of 7
Based upon my experience resolving SPU SIRVA cases (more than 1,200 cases
since my appointment as Chief Special Master) as well as additional SIRVA cases
handled on my regular docket, I find it is not unusual for the information regarding site of
vaccination to be incorrect.3 In many instances, the information regarding situs is
recorded prior to vaccination, and is not updated - even if the vaccine is then administered
in the opposing arm. Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated
documents bearing on issues pertaining to situs, they are not per se reliable simply
because they come first – and in fact the nature of their creation provides some basis for
not accepting them at face value.
Here, the vaccine record – a list of three vaccines received in 2015-18 which
appears to have been printed from computerized records using a software program - is
the only evidence in this case which supports a finding of right arm situs. And it is not
clear when and by whom this record was created. Accordingly, given the general
unreliability of these administration documents in the experience of SPU SIRVA cases,
this evidence alone is not sufficient to counter Petitioner’s clear, consistent, and close-in-
time reports of left shoulder pain after receiving the flu vaccine in her left arm on
November 14, 2018.
V. Scheduling Order
Petitioner has indicated that she expects to have collected all documentation
needed to support her demand by next week - August 26, 2022. ECF No. 27. And
Respondent estimates he can file his Rule 4(c) Report two week after my ruling. Motion
at 3.
Petitioner shall file a status report updating me on her efforts to finalize her
demand and to obtain any needed supporting documentation by no later than
Wednesday, September 07, 2022. The status report should indicate the date by
which Petitioner conveyed or expects to convey her demand and supporting
documentation to Respondent.
Respondent shall file his Rule 4(c) Report by no later than Wednesday,
September 07, 2022.
3 See, e.g., Arnold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1038V 2021 WL 2908519, at *4 (Fed. CL.
Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2021); Syed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1364V, 2021 WL 2229829, at
*4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2021); Ruddy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 19-1998V, 2021 WL
1291777, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-0811V,
2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 36 Filed 09/26/22 Page 7 of 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00055-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/07/2022) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0055V
UNPUBLISHED
ELLEN RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 7, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 5, 2021, Ellen Rodriguez 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Table, after receiving the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 14, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 19. Petitioner further alleges
she received the vaccine in the United States, that she continues to suffer the residual
effects of her SIRVA more than six months post-vaccination, and that neither she nor any
other person has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2,
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 2
19-21. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On July 11, 2022, the parties requested a factual finding regarding the site of
vaccination. Joint Motion for Fact Ruling, ECF No. 26. On August 23, 2022, I issued a
ruling, finding the flu vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, as
alleged. ECF No. 30.
On September 7, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in which he states
that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 33. Specifically, he indicates that he “has
elected not to defend the issue of entitlement for this case . . . [and] does not contest that
[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the
Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id. at 4-5.
In view of Respondent’s position and 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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00055-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-11-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/28/2022) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0055V
UNPUBLISHED
ELLEN RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 28, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 5, 2021, Ellen Rodriguez 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Table, after receiving the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 14, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 19. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 7, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA injury. On October 28, 2022, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$90,968.71, representing compensation in the amounts of $87,500.00 for her pain and
suffering and $3,468.71 for her unreimbursed medical expenses. Proffer at 2. In the
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 5
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.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $90,968.71, representing compensation in the amounts of
$87,500.00 for her pain and suffering and $3,468.71 for her unreimbursable medical
expenses 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-00055-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ELLEN RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
Case No. 21-55V (ECF)
v. CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER
CORCORAN
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Procedural History
On January 5, 2021, Ellen Rodriguez (“petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation (“Pet.”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. Petitioner alleges
that she suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result
of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 14, 2018. Pet. at 1.
On July 11, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for a Ruling on the Record
regarding which arm was vaccinated. ECF Doc. No. 26. On August 23, 2022, the Court
issued its ruling, finding that petitioner was vaccinated in her left arm. ECF Doc. No. 30
at 6. On September 7, 2022, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, stating that he would
not defend entitlement in this case. ECF Doc. No. 33 at 1. That same day, the Court

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/28/22 Page 4 of 5
issued its Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation.
ECF Doc. No. 34.
II. Items of Compensation and Form of the Award
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded $90,968.71. The award is comprised of the following: $87,500.00 for pain and
suffering and $3,468.71 for unreimbursed medical expenses. This amount represents all
elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) regarding her November 14, 2018 flu vaccination. Petitioner
agrees.1
III. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $90,968.71, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this
case.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
1 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 medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00055-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/28/22 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Mark K. Hellie
MARK K. HELLIE
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
T: (202) 616-4208
E: mark.hellie@usdoj.gov
DATED: October 28, 2022
3