VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00066
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00066
Petitioner: Amy Schwalm
Filed: 2021-01-05
Decided: 2024-04-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-05
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 52875

AI-assisted case summary:
Amy Schwalm filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 5, 2019. The parties could not informally resolve the claim, leading to a hearing on March 15, 2024. The court found that while the respondent argued that Ms. Schwalm did not report her shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination, the evidence, including her status as a pharmacist who might self-treat and her colleague's recollection, preponderated in her favor. The court also noted that the requirement for reduced range of motion did not have a specific onset timeframe and that medical records indicated such limitation. Ms. Schwalm's injury was determined to be a Table SIRVA, satisfying all requirements for compensation. The court awarded Ms. Schwalm a total of $52,875.37, consisting of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,875.37 for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00066-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-23
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/21/2024) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master, Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0066V
AMY SCHWALM,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 21, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Edward M. Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 5, 2021, Amy Schwalm 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 a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
November 5, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
Because the parties could not informally resolve the claim, they were ordered to
file briefs setting forth their respective arguments, and were notified that I would resolve
1 Because this Ruling/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 Ruling/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-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 6
this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on March
15, 2024.
As discussed below, I find Petitioner entitled to compensation, and award her
$50,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering, plus $2,875.37 for out-of-pocket medical
expenses, for a total of $52,875.37.
I. Legal Standards
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.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No.
90–2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
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).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 3 of 6
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 a flu vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). 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).
II. Ruling on Entitlement and Damages
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on both
entitlement and damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant
to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the March 15, 2024 hearing. An official
recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not
3

Case 1:21-vv-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 4 of 6
yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially
recorded.
A. Entitlement
a. Ruling
Respondent argues that there is not preponderant evidence to show that Petitioner
experienced shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Respondent’s
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of
Damages (“Opp.”) at 7-8. (ECF No. 37). During the hearing, Respondent also postulated
that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she suffered a reduced range of motion within
the first six months of vaccinations.
The Vaccine Act does not specify when the reduced range of motion should first
manifest, as it does for the onset of shoulder pain. Rather, the QAI states only that the
“pain and reduced range of motion [must be] limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). See Bolick v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-893V, 2023 WL 8187307, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 19, 2023);
Robuck v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0465V, 2023 WL 6214986, at *6 (Fed.
Cl. Aug. 21, 2023). There is evidence in the record that Petitioner exhibited a reduced
range of motion. See e.g., Ex. 7 at 6. Thus, I find that Petitioner has fulfilled this criterion.
Next, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s medical records do not demonstrate the
onset of a left shoulder injury within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Opp. at 9-10. In
support of this argument, Respondent states that Petitioner did not report her shoulder
pain to a treating physician until four months and 10 day following vaccination, on March
15, 2020,despite several intervening visits. Opp. at 10; Ex. 10 at 1.
I do credit Respondent’s argument that the first report of a shoulder injury more
than four months after vaccination is a significant period of time to wait. However, the
existing record favors Petitioner’s side of this fact dispute, albeit barely. One fact that
preponderates in Petitioner’s favor is that she is a pharmacist, and in general many
medical providers do tend to self-treat SIRVA injuries in the initial weeks and months post
vaccination. Petitioner also reports that she was taking the maximum dose of over-the-
counter pain relievers (ibuprofen and acetaminophen) to treat her flu symptoms and thus,
her pain and seemed to resolve for a short period of time. Ex. 10 at 1-2. When Petitioner
did report her shoulder pain to a medical provider on March 15, 2020, she reported that
she “got my flu shot 11/5/2019 and my left upper arm (lower deltoid area) has been in
pain nonstop ever since. Id. Similarly, when Schwalm presented to Dr. Panozzo in-office
in May 2020, it was noted that Ms. Schwalm had “left arm pain since receiving flu vaccine
4

Case 1:21-vv-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 5 of 6
in November/pain when lifting.” Ex. 3 at 8-9; see also Ex. at 7 (In October 2020, Dr. Clark
noted “L arm pain-s/p flu shot.”); Ex. 9 at 8 (Orthopedist, David Hamming, M.D., noted
that Petitioner had gotten the flu shot in November 2019 “and has had pain since.); Ex. 9
at 14 (the MRI report states it was indicated for “left shoulder pain since vaccination
November 2019.”) In addition, Petitioner’s pharmacist colleague, Ms. Wegrzyn, averred
that she received her flu vaccination the same day as Petitioner and recalled that
Petitioner complained to her of left arm pain that very day. Ex. 14 at 1. Thus, I find that
Petitioner has satisfied her burden on this element as well.
b. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or established
causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional
requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual effects of injury
lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are
established or undisputed. Petitioner has therefore established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA, satisfying all other requirements for compensation.
B. Damages
As discussed above, I issued an oral ruling on damages constituting my findings
of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the
March 15, 2024 hearing. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially
recorded. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Friberg v. Sec’y
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6,
2022) to the instant Ruling and Decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral
ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts
relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision
awarding damages herein.
C. Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $50,000.00,
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.4
4 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
5

Case 1:21-vv-00066-UNJ Document 48 Filed 04/23/24 Page 6 of 6
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $52,875.37
(consisting of $50,000.00 for her pain and suffering and $2,875.37 for her out-of-
pocket 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
5 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.
6