VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00129
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00129
Petitioner: Kristen Dixon
Filed: 2021-01-06
Decided: 2024-06-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-05
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 73000

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristen Dixon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccination on November 5, 2020. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Ms. Dixon met the criteria for SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, the respondent noted that she had no prior shoulder issues, the pain occurred within 48 hours of the vaccination, was limited to the injection site, and no other condition explained the pain. The case proceeded to determine damages, as the parties could not reach an informal resolution. Ms. Dixon sought $77,500.00 for pain and suffering. After considering arguments and comparable cases, the Chief Special Master awarded Ms. Dixon $73,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering, representing compensation for all available damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00129-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/14/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00129-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/15/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-129V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTEN DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 14, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jonathan Svitak, Shannon Law Group. P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 6, 2021, Kristen Dixon 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) resulting from an influenza (flu) vaccination received on
November 5, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was
administered within the United States, that her injury required treatment for a period of
least six months, and that neither she, nor any other party, has ever filed any action for
her vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00129-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/15/23 Page 2 of 2
On April 14, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Respondent concluded 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. Specifically, Respondent determined that “[P]etitioner had no history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder; pain occurred within 48 hours after
receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the
vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to
explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner timely
filed her case, that she received the flu vaccine in the United States, and that she satisfies
the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id.
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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00129-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-27
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/24/2024) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00129-UNJ Document 53 Filed 06/27/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-129V
KRISTEN DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 24, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan J. Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodbridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 6, 2021, Kristen Dixon 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on November 5,
2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters. Although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties could not
informally resolve the issue of damages, and they were therefore ordered to file briefs
setting forth their respective arguments. Damages were resolved via an expedited
“Motions Day” hearing on May 17, 2024
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-00129-UNJ Document 53 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 3
Petitioner has sought an award of $77,500.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s
actual pain and suffering. Respondent did not recommend a specific contrary amount, but
instead only requested that I award some amount lower than Petitioner’s demand.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, 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 May 17, 2024 hearing. An official recording of the proceeding was
taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I
hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. As discussed
during my oral ruling, in another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard
to be considered in determining damages based upon prior SIRVA compensation within
SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of
Winkle v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 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. However, given the nature of
Respondent’s argument presented in his briefing and at the hearing, some further
analysis is necessary.
The four cases presented as comparables by Petitioner, Hartman v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1106V, 2022 WL 444456 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 14,
2022); Pruett v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-561,2019 WL 3297083 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 30, 2019); Balch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-872V, 2023
WL 150783 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2023); and Kim v. Health & Hum. Servs., No.
17-418V, 2018 WL 3991022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018)), establish a reasonable
upper range for an award for Petitioner in the instant case. However, each case presented
a slightly more severe injury than herein, whether it be due to more severe pain (e.g.,
Pruett and Hartman) or had other factors which served to make the SIRVA more impactful
(e.g., Blach and the impact the SIRVA had on the petitioner managing his cancer
diagnosis). All of those cases also were resolved for a lower sum than what Petitioner is
requesting.
Respondent’s decision to not offer a competing amount, or even one comparable
case supporting such a figure, did little to help resolve the dispute. Presumably,
Respondent believes that his best offer was made when he tendered a proffer to
Petitioner. Indeed, Respondent noted in his response that “[a]wards that significantly
deviate from this full value incentivize petitioners to reject respondent’s full-value proffers,
confident that the court will always award more.” Response at 7 (ECF No. 40) (emphasis
in original). However, I have repeatedly noted that proffers only reflect Respondent’s
judgment as to the correct damages sum, and thus (while they may or may not be legally
2

Case 1:21-vv-00129-UNJ Document 53 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 3
defensible or persuasive) are not as useful in determining damages as a reasoned
determination by a special master. Respondent runs the risk that I will simply adopt the
Petitioner’s figure if this approach is maintained in future cases.
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 $73,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.3
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $73,000.00 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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-
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)).
4 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.
3