VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00153
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00153
Petitioner: Stephanie Tompkins
Filed: 2021-01-06
Decided: 2025-10-20
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-10-23
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 91098.85

AI-assisted case summary:
Stephanie Tompkins, a 44-year-old operating-room nurse, filed a petition on January 6, 2021 alleging that a Tdap vaccination on October 23, 2019 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Her records showed severe left shoulder pain and reduced range of motion after vaccination, followed by medication, physical therapy, and eventually arthroscopic surgery on September 15, 2020.

Respondent disputed whether the six-month severity requirement was met, pointing to a treatment gap from February to August 2020. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the gap did not break the medical story. The record reflected temporary relief from conservative care, the disruption of the COVID-19 period, and later providers treating her symptoms as the same continuing left shoulder problem. He found that Ms. Tompkins satisfied the Table SIRVA requirements and granted entitlement on June 28, 2024.

The damages decision was filed October 20, 2025. Respondent proffered an award that Ms. Tompkins accepted, and Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $91,098.85: $87,500.00 for pain and suffering, $281.85 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $3,317.00 for past lost wages. The award was payable as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account. Ms. Tompkins was represented by Amy A. Senerth of Muller Brazil, LLP.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine, October 23, 2019, age 44, causing left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent disputed six-month severity because of a February-August 2020 treatment gap; Chief Special Master Corcoran found continuous left shoulder symptoms, temporary conservative-treatment relief, COVID-era context, and later arthroscopic surgery supported severity. Entitlement June 28, 2024. Award October 20, 2025: $91,098.85 ($87,500 pain/suffering + $281.85 unreimbursable expenses + $3,317 lost wages). Attorney Amy A. Senerth.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00153-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-06
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/28/2024) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0153V
STEPHANIE TOMPKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 28, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 6, 2021, Stephanie Tompkins 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on October 23, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. She further
alleges that her “left shoulder injuries and sequelae lasted more than six months.” Id. at
¶ 7.
1 Because this Ruling 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 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-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 11
The parties dispute whether the “severity requirement” (an element of all Program
claims) is met. For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner likely suffered the
residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and she has satisfied the other
requirements of a compensable Table SIRVA injury. Petitioner is thus entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, Ms. Tompkins filed some of the medical records required
under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-9; see Section 11(c). Over the subsequent ten-month
period, she filed her remaining medical records, workers’ compensation documents, and
a signed statement.3 Exhibits 10-13, ECF Nos. 6, 12, 18. After Petitioner provided her list
of medical providers in April 2022 (ECF No. 21), the case was activated and assigned to
the “Special Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution of cases deemed
likely to settle). ECF No. 23.
In late 2022 and early 2023, Petitioner filed updated medical records and provided
a demand and supporting documentation to Respondent. Exhibit 14, ECF No. 29; Status
Report, ECF No. 30. On June 14, 2023, Respondent stated that he was willing to engage
in settlement discussions. Status Report, ECF No. 32. Almost eight months later, the
parties informed me they had reached an impasse. Status Report, ECF No. 40.
On March 29, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation
in this case. ECF No. 41. Emphasizing the six-month gap in treatment beginning in early
February 2020 (four months post-vaccination), Respondent asserts that “the evidence
does not preponderantly support that [P]etitioner’s injury was ongoing during this period
or that [P]etitioner’s treatment in August 2020 was causally related to her pre-gap
shoulder injury.” Id. at 5. He maintains that “Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold
six-month severity requirement under the Vaccine Act, and . . . is not entitled to
compensation.” Id. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Finding of Fact Regarding Duration
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA
for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
requirement).
3 The statement was not notarized or signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
Exhibit 14.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 11
A. 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).
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.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 11
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.
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).
B. Analysis
I make the severity finding after a complete review of the record to include all
medical records, affidavits or declarations, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
base the findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered from asthma, sinusitis, allergies,
migraines, reoccurring lower back pain from an earlier injury, a goiter, and
injury to her left-hand small finger in January 2019. Exhibits 4-7, 9.
• On October 23, 2019, Petitioner (then 44 years old and an operating room
nurse) received the Tdap vaccine intramuscularly in her left deltoid at her
hospital’s emergency room (“ER”), after sustaining a puncture wound from
a patient while at work. Exhibit 1 at 5; Exhibit 2 at 20, 27-28.
• On week later, on October 30, 2019, Petitioner visited the occupational
health clinic, complaining of soreness followed by severe pain after
receiving the Tdap vaccine. Exhibit 12 at 2, 4. She reported pain at a level
of eight to nine out of ten. Id. at 4. Upon examination, Petitioner exhibited a
reduced and pain range of motion (“ROM”), but no redness or swelling. Id.
at 5. She was prohibited from lifting more than five pounds, instructed to
4

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 11
continue applying warm compresses, and prescribed Tylenol and a Medrol
dosepak. Id.
• Returning to the occupational health clinic two days later, Petitioner
continued to experience pain, estimated at a severity of seven, but had
gained improvement in her ROM, attributed to the oral steroid medication
prescribed on October 30th. Exhibit 12 at 16-17. She also exhibited redness
and swelling which had started the previous day. Id.
• When seen again at the occupational health clinic three days later, on
November 4, 2019, Petitioner’s redness had resolved, but her pain and
swelling continued. Exhibit 12 at 17. It was noted that she was likely
suffering from cellulitis, in addition to her left shoulder pain. Id.
• By her next appointment on November 11, 2019, Petitioner had finished her
oral steroid medication, but continued to experience pain and limited ROM.
Exhibit 12 at 17. The treating physician opined that her injury was work-
related and provided her with an orthopedic referral. Id. at 19, 21.
• Twelve days later, on November 23, 2019, Petitioner was seen by the
orthopedist. Exhibit 12 at 24-25. Noting that her cellulitis had resolved, but
that she continued to experience left shoulder pain and limited ROM, the
orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with rotator cuff tendonitis and ordered an
MRI. Id.
• Performed on November 25, 2019, the MRI revealed findings indicative of
infraspinatus tendinitis. Exhibit 2 at 10.
• At her initial physical therapy (“PT”) evaluation on December 2, 2019,
Petitioner complained of left shoulder pain that began with vaccination with
pain levels ranging from one at best to seven at worst. Exhibit 3 at 231, 241-
43. The therapist recommended that Petitioner attend PT twice weekly for
four weeks. Id. at 234.
• When seen again by the orthopedist on December 9, 2019, Petitioner
reported some early improvement with PT, adding that she was tolerating
normal duties. Exhibit 12 at 26. The orthopedist administered a steroid
injection. Id.
• Throughout 22 PT sessions in December 2019 through January 2020,
Petitioner reported pain levels ranging from two to four with medication.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 6 of 11
E.g., Exhibit 3 at 152, 144, 140, 135, 130, 125 (in chronologic order). At her
21st PT session on February 1, 2020, she estimated that her pain level was
two out of ten with medication and seven out of ten when sleeping. Id. at
115.
• At her next orthopedic appointment on February 3, 2020, Petitioner reported
that she “[c]ontinue[d] to make progress with physical therapy.” Exhibit 12
at 32. The orthopedist concluded she “may continue her normal duties . . .
[and] can be discharged from formal physical therapy.” Id. He added that
Petitioner should “continue with home exercise program” (“HEP”). Id.
• At her 22nd PT session on February 5, 2020, Petitioner reported pain at a
level of three with medication (specifically Motrin). Exhibit 3 at 109. It was
noted that she was being discharged from PT by her treating physician. Id.
• Nineteen days later, on February 24, 2020, Petitioner returned to the
orthopedist, for follow-up of her left shoulder pain. Exhibit 12 at 34. Although
she was “[t]olerating her normal job duties,” Petitioner reported that she
“[s]till ha[d] some discomfort [with] certain motions” and continued to
perform her HEP. Id.
• Petitioner did not seek treatment for her left shoulder symptoms for six
months thereafter. The only intervening record is from May 28, 2020, when
she visited a dermatologist for treatment of a scaly papule in her nasal
cavity. Exhibit 8 at 7. There is no mention of left shoulder pain in the record
from this visit. Id. at 3-8.
• On August 27, 2020, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist, now reporting
that “[s]he ha[d] been tolerating her normal job duties but [was] having
increasing discomfort again in the left shoulder.” Exhibit 12 at 68. Upon
examination, the orthopedist observed “[s]ome mild loss of motion to
internal rotation, [m]arkedly positive impingement sign, . . . [m]ild weakness
to [the] rotator cuff, [and] [p]ainful arc of motion.” Id. at 69. Characterizing
her symptoms as a reoccurrence and causally related to her work-related
injury, the orthopedist stated Petitioner would be scheduled for surgery. Id.
at 69-70.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 7 of 11
• On September 15, 2020, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery,
specifically left shoulder rotator cuff and labral debridement, subacromial
bursectomy, and decompression, and acromioplasty.4 Exhibit 12 at 54-58.
• Two days later, on September 17, 2020, Petitioner attended her first post-
surgical visit with the orthopedist. Exhibit 12 at 39-40. X-rays confirmed a
successful subacromial decompression. Id. at 39. The orthopedist
instructed Petitioner to stop using her sling and begin PT as soon as
possible. Id.
• The same day, Petitioner was evaluated by the physical therapist. Exhibit
3 at 90-106. In this record, her condition was described as “left shoulder
pain following vaccine at ER in October 2019.” Exhibit 3 at 91. Petitioner
was described as obtaining “no significant relief” from twelve weeks of PT
and undergoing arthroscopic surgery two days earlier. Id.
• Petitioner attended twelve more PT sessions in September and October
2020. Exhibit 3 at 8-89. At her last PT session on October 15th, she reported
a pain level of six without medication. Id. at 8. She was instructed to follow-
up with her treating physician for authorization of four additional weeks of
PT. Id. at 11.
• On November 9, 2020, Petitioner was cleared to return to work full-time.
Exhibit 12 at 74.
• Petitioner reported significant improvement at her final post-surgical
appointment on December 17, 2020. Exhibit 12 at 41. Described as
performing “her normal job duties,” Petitioner continued to exhibit “some
strength deficits . . . [and] discomfort on the endpoints of motion.” Id. The
orthopedist instructed Petitioner to discontinue formal PT and to continue
her HEP and normal duties. Id.
• In her witness statement, signed without any date or notation related to
penalty of perjury, Petitioner provided significant details regarding her initial
injury and symptoms. Exhibit 13 at ¶¶ 3-8. Regarding her later symptoms,
she stated only that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more
than six months. Id. at ¶ 10.
4 Acromioplasty is the “surgical removal of an anterior spur of the acromion to relieve mechanical
compression of the rotator cuff during movement of the glenohumeral joint.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED
MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 20 (32th ed. 2012).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 8 of 11
To satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement in this case, Petitioner must show
that she suffered symptoms of her alleged SIRVA beyond April 23, 2020 (assuming a
same day onset which the record preponderantly supports). The above medical entries
preponderantly suggest Petitioner suffered from pain and limited ROM from her vaccine
and work-related injury through at least December 2020, and despite a six-month gap in
treatment from February through August 2020.
When arguing that Petitioner has failed to meet this requirement, Respondent
relies heavily upon the gap in treatment, arguing there is insufficient evidence to link her
later symptoms to those she experienced during the initial four-month period from October
2019 through February 2020. Rule 4(c) Report at 5. However, the evidence in this case
shows that the treatment gap coincided with the likely relief provided by the steroid
injection Petitioner received in late December 2019, plus the PT she attended through
February 2020. It is common for Vaccine Act petitioners to receive temporary relief for a
modest duration from such conservative treatment. And the PT records showed
Petitioner’s symptoms had gradually improved, but not completely resolved, by her last
PT session in February 2020. Exhibit 12 at 34. Furthermore, the gap in treatment
coincided perfectly with the worldwide COVID Pandemic which monopolized medical
resources at that time.5 Although Petitioner sought treatment from her dermatologist in
May 2020 (Exhibit 8 at 3-8), that one appointment is not sufficient to establish a lack of
ongoing, albeit possibly mild and/or intermittent, left shoulder symptoms. And Petitioner’s
failure to mention any left shoulder symptoms during that visit is not problematic. It would
be illogical for Petitioner to have made that complaint to her dermatologist.
Most telling in this case is the fact that all medical providers viewed Petitioner’s
symptoms as part of the same left shoulder condition. When Petitioner returned for
treatment in August 2020, the orthopedist characterized her symptoms as a reoccurrence
and causally related to her work-related injury. Exhibit 12 at 69-70. This description of left
shoulder pain related to the Tdap vaccine received in October 2019, was then echoed
throughout PT records from sessions in September and October 2020. E.g., Exhibit 3 at
91.
The mildness and intermittent nature of symptoms Petitioner may have suffered
during the first half of 2020 are highly relevant to damages, but do not prevent a favorable
severity finding. Nor does the intermittent nature of Petitioner’s symptoms prevent her
from establishing sequela for more than six months. Accordingly, there is preponderant
5 The WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020,
and a pandemic on March 11, 2020. See https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19 (last
visited on June 25, 2024).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 9 of 11
evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged SIRVA for
more than six months.
III. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration of
petitioner’s injury (discussed above in Section II), and the lack of other award or
settlement,6 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 a Hep B vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(VIII)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“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:
6 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he 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 his injury for more than six months, died from his 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 Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
9

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 10 of 11
(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) (2017).
B. Analysis
Respondent has stated no further objections to compensation, and I find Petitioner
has otherwise satisfied all criteria for a Table SIRVA injury following receipt of the flu
vaccine. There is no evidence of prior left shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction or
an alternative cause for Petitioner’s symptoms. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv) (first
and fourth QAI criteria). And Petitioner experienced pain within 48 hours of vaccination
and exhibited pain and limitations in ROM solely in her left, injured shoulder. E.g., Exhibit
12 at 4 (first report of pain one-week post-vaccination); Exhibit 3 at 241 (pain onset
identified on October 23, 2019, and linked to the Tdap vaccine); see 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(ii) & (iii) (second and third QAI criteria).
As I have determined in this ruling, the record supports a finding that Petitioner
suffered the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months. See Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (the Vaccine Act’s six-month severity requirement). Additionally, the vaccine
record shows Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine at the ER in the medical facility in New
Jersey where she worked after sustaining puncture wounds on her right forearm from a
patient. Exhibit 1 at 5; Exhibit 2 at 20, 27-28; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of
a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). And there is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for his injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Thus, Petitioner has
satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
10

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/24 Page 11 of 11
IV. Appropriate Amount of Compensation
Although I have found Petitioner entitled to compensation, I expect the amount to
be awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering to be on the lower end for a SIRVA
case involving arthroscopic surgery. Although Petitioner reported severe pain initially (e.g.
Exhibit 12 at 4), she obtained good, albeit temporary, relief prior to surgery (e.g., id. at
34). And Petitioner’s surgery included procedures required to address pre-existing
conditions, which would have been unaffected or only slightly aggravated by vaccination.
Id. at 54 (stating surgery included labral debridement and acromioplasty). Thus, Petitioner
should not expect a substantial pain and suffering compensation (although this case did
involve surgery).
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA and the
Vaccine Act’s severity requirement needed for both Table and non-Table claims.
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00153-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-19
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/20/2025) regarding 59 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0153V
STEPHANIE TOMPKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 20, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 6, 2021, Stephanie Tompkins 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on October 23, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 28, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. On October 17, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $91,098.85,
representing $87,500.00 for pain and suffering, $281.85 for past unreimbursable
expenses, and $3,317.00 for past lost wages. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent
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-00153-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 5
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 $91,098.85, representing $87,500.00 for pain and suffering, $281.85
for actual unreimbursable expenses, and $3,317.00 for actual lost wages, to be paid
through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement 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-00153-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
STEPHANIE TOMPKINS,
Petitioner, No. 21-153V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 6, 2021, Stephanie Tompkins (“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”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on October 23, 2019. Petition at 1.
On June 28, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 45.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $87,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
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 June 28, 2024 Ruling on Entitlement.

Case 1:21-vv-00153-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in
the amount of $281.85. Petitioner agrees.
C. Lost Wages
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past lost wages related to
her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past lost
wages in the amount of $3,317.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). 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 the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $91,098.85, to be paid
through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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-00153-UNJ Document 63 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
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: October 17, 2025
3