VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00158
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00158
Petitioner: Monique Samayoa
Filed: 2021-01-06
Decided: 2025-06-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Monique Samayoa filed a petition alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. She reported pain and limited range of motion in her left arm starting seventeen days post-vaccination, attributing it to the flu shot administered in her left deltoid. Her claim was accepted by her workers' compensation carrier, and she received treatment including physical therapy and a steroid injection. However, the respondent argued that she failed to meet the six-month severity requirement for a Table SIRVA injury. The court found that Petitioner likely received the vaccine in her left arm, granting her motion for a factual finding on the site of vaccination. The decision noted that further evidence and argument are needed to address the severity requirement and the respondent's arguments regarding the Table claim. The parties were encouraged to explore settlement, and a joint status report was ordered. The case is ongoing, pending further evidence and argument on entitlement and damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00158-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-09
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/07/2025) regarding 47 Scheduling Order,, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0158V
MONIQUE SAMAYOA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 7, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Emily Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 6, 2021, Monique Samayoa 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 an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. Although the vaccine record in this case
does not include information pertaining to the site of vaccination,3 Petitioner alleges that
1 Because this Fact 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 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 (2018).
3 Exhibit 5. It shows only that the flu vaccine was administered intramuscularly on October 16, 2019. Id. at
2.

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 2 of 11
the flu vaccine was administered in her left deltoid. Id. at ¶ 2. She also maintains that
“[her] left shoulder injuries and sequelae lasted more than six (6) months.” Id. at ¶ 11.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner likely received the flu vaccine in
her left arm as alleged. However, Petitioner must provide additional evidence to establish
that she has satisfied the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, or that she has met all
requirements for a Table SIRVA.4
I. 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 consider ation 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
4 See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity requirement); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)XIV(B) & (c)(10)
(2017) (the requirements for a Table SIRVA); Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (setting out the three-pronged test which must be met to establish causation).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 3 of 11
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.
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).
II. Finding of Fact
I make the finding regarding site of vaccination after a complete review of the
record to include all medical records, affidavits, documentation, briefing, and additional
evidence filed. Specifically, I base the finding on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered common illnesses and conditions
such as sinusitis, kidney stones, and gastroesophageal reflux. Ex. 2 at 8-
3

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 4 of 11
803. Right hand dominant, she experienced tenosynovitis5 in her right wrist
in early 2019, and tarsal tunnel syndrome6 in her left ankle in the fall of 2016.
E.g., Ex. 1 at 22 (left ankle complaint); Ex. 2 at 769 (right wrist complaint).
There is no evidence that she suffered any issues related to her left
shoulder prior to vaccination.
• On October 16, 2019, Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal
at her place of employment. Exs. 5, 7. The vaccine record states only that
she received the flu vaccine intramuscularly. Ex. 5 at 2; see also Ex. 7
(showing Petitioner’s attempts to obtain the needed site of administration).
• On November 2, 2019 (seventeen days post-vaccination), Petitioner was
seen for a workers’ compensation complaint, stating that the flu vaccine
“was given in her left upper arm but since then it has been very sore.” Ex. 4
at 6. She reported that “she can barely lift her arm, [h]as decreased range
of motion, [and] [a]lso has tingling down [the] arm to elbow.” Id. Noting that
she does not have to lift or restraint patients during her work as a mental
health technician with troubled kids, Petitioner theorized that her symptoms
must be linked to the flu vaccine she received. Id. Observing “diffuse
tenderness about the left deltoid area” (id. at 7), the doctor treating her
administered a steroid injection and instructed her to return in a few days
for re-evaluation. Id. at 7-8.
• During the morning of November 4, 2019, Petitioner submitted an incident
report by phone, providing additional details regarding the events that
occurred when she received the vaccine. Ex. 4 at 2. Petitioner again stated
that the vaccine was administered in her left arm. Id. It was noted that she
was “sent home early yesterday, 11/3/19” and was missing work that day.
Id. at 3.
• Later that same day (November 4th), Petitioner attended the workers’
compensation follow-up appointment for left shoulder pain that was noted
to be “persistent since her flu shot 3 weeks ago.” Ex. 4 at 9. Stating that she
“can feel a knot in her upper arm,” she described constant pain, “throbbing
5 Tenosynovitis is the “inflammation of a tendon sheath.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY at
1882 (32th ed. 2012).
6 Tarsal tunnel syndrome is “a syndrome of overuse injury with a complex of symptoms resulting of
compression of the posterior tibial nerve or of the plantar nerves in the tarsal tunnel, with pain, pain,
numbness, and tingling paresthesia of the sole of the foot.” DORLAND’S at 1850.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 5 of 11
and tingling down her arm, [l]imited ROM[7] without pain, and a [sic] all over
heavy feeling.” Id. at 9. Petitioner was prescribed pain medication and
provided an orthopedic referral. Id. at 10.
• The next day (November 5, 2019), Petitioner visited the emergency room
(“ER”), complaining of throbbing left shoulder discomfort that started after
she received the flu vaccine at work. Ex. 2 at 840. She reported that she
had two urgent care visits with no improvement and had been referred to
orthopedics, but not seen yet. Petitioner was diagnosed with acute left
shoulder pain and told to follow-up with orthopedics as previously
instructed. Id. at 844-45.
• On November 14, 2019, Petitioner returned to the ER, concerned about a
lump she discovered in the left groin area. Ex. 2 at 914. She was diagnosed
with a cyst of the left Bartholin gland,8 prescribed antibiotics, and instructed
to return if the cyst increased in size or her condition otherwise worsened.
Id. at 918-19, 927. There is no mention of left shoulder pain at this visit.
• On November 18, 2019, Petitioner visited the orthopedic clinic where she
received treatment for her left ankle condition in 2016, complaining of left
shoulder pain that began immediately after she received a flu shot at work.
Ex. 1 at 20. Estimating her current pain as ten out of ten, she described
diffuse pain around her shoulder that sometimes radiated down her arm and
intermittent tingling and numbness in her fingertips. Id. Noting that Petitioner
had “a very remarkable exam” and no symptom improvement after a steroid
injection, the orthopedist ordered an MRI and physical therapy (“PT”). Id. at
21.
• Petitioner returned to the ER on November 23, 2019, for further treatment
of her Bartholin cyst which had worsened. Ex. 2 at 990. The ER physician
drained the cyst, and prescribed further medication. Id. at 993. There is no
mention of left shoulder pain at this visit.
• On November 27, 2019, the North Carolina Industrial Commission (“NCIC”)
determined that Petitioner was entitled to payment for her vaccine-related
left shoulder pain pursuant to her workers’ compensation claim. Ex. 4 at 50.
7 ROM stands for range of motion. MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 521 (16th ed. 2020).
8 “A Bartholin cyst is a firm, round bump near the opening to your vagina.” See
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17737-bartholin-cyst (last visited May 5, 2025).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 6 of 11
• On December 16, 2019, Petitioner attended her first PT session. Ex. 3 at 4-
8. She again described left shoulder pain since receiving the flu vaccine on
October 16th, along with numbness and tingling to her fingertips. Id. at 4. It
was noted that Petitioner was unable work or perform functional tests:
repetitive and overhead reaching and grasping. Id. Reporting a maximum
pain level of ten, Petitioner exhibited reduced strength and ROM. Id. at 4-5.
• Two days later, Petitioner attended her second PT session. Ex. 3 at 9-10.
Exhibiting the same abilities and limitations in strength and ROM (id.),
Petitioner was noted to have tolerated treatment “with moderate complaints
of pain” (id. at 10).
• Petitioner did not show for PT sessions scheduled for December 24 and 26,
2019. Ex. 3 at 11-12.
• At her PT re-evaluation on December 31, 2019, Petitioner exhibited the
same strength deficits and inability to perform specific tasks, but
improvements in ROM. Ex. 3 at 13-14. It was recommended that she attend
two PT sessions weekly for four weeks. Id. at 15-16.
• On January 8, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI of her left shoulder which
revealed mild cuff tendinopathy and peritendinobursitis,9 mild AC joint
degeneration, and no cuff, labrum, or biceps tear. Ex. 1 at 95.
• In early January 2020, Petitioner either rescheduled or failed to show for
three PT sessions. Ex. 3 at 18-19, 23. She attended only one PT session
on January 9, 2020. Id. at 20-22. In the record from that session, it was
noted that Petitioner “tolerated today’s treatment intervention with mild
complaints of pain.” Id. at 22.
• At her next re-evaluation on January 15, 2020, it was noted that Petitioner
continued to be unable to work, but could perform two of the three
occupational tasks (repetitive reaching and grasping) for up to ten minutes.
Ex. 3 at 24. Although she continued to report a maximum pain of ten,
Petitioner exhibited improvements in strength and ROM. Id. at 24-25. It was
9 This term appears to refer to both tendonitis, also known as tendinitis: “inflammation of tendons and of
tendon-muscle attachments” (DORLAND’S at 1881) and bursitis: “inflammation of a bursa” (Id. at 264).
Peritendineum is “the connective tissue investing larger tendons and extending as a septa between the
fibers composing them.” DORLAND’S at 1418. Peritendinitis is another term for tenosynovitis. Id.; see infra
note 5 (defining this condition which was the diagnosis for Petitioner’s right wrist symptoms in early 2019).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 7 of 11
recommended that she attend PT session twice weekly for three additional
weeks. Id. at 27.
• Petitioner’s condition remained the same during PT sessions on January 17
and February 5, 2020. Ex. 3 at 30-31, 36-37. She was described as
tolerating treatment “with moderate complaints of pain” at both sessions. Id.
at 32, 38.
• During this time, Petitioner also failed to show for three PT sessions. Ex. 3
at 33-35.
• On January 31, 2020, Petitioner visit her orthopedist to discuss the results
of her January 8, 2020 MRI. Ex. 1 at 14. She again reported immediate pain
after receiving the flu vaccine at work on October 16, 2019. Rating her pain
as eight out of ten, Petitioner described it as constant, stabbing, shooting,
and achy pain, adding that she also experienced popping and pain radiating
to her elbow. Maintaining that her condition was worsening, she stated that
her ROM had improved with PT, but denied any pain relief. Id.
• Upon examination, the orthopedist observed lateral cuff insertion
tenderness and limited ROM with pain. Ex. 1 at 15. Noting that the MRI
showed an intact rotator cuff and no evidence of persistent pain, the
orthopedist recommended Petitioner continue her conservative care and
prescribed a topical gel and pain medication. Id.
• At her next re-evaluation on February 10, 2020, Petitioner continued to be
unable to work. Ex. 3 at 39. Although her maximum pain levels and ability
to perform occupational tasks remained the same, she again exhibited
improvement in strength and ROM. Id. at 39-40. It was recommended that
she continue to attend PT sessions twice weekly for four weeks. Id. at 42.
• Petitioner continued to exhibit improvements in strength and ROM during
two more PT sessions on February 10 and 19, 2020. Ex. 3 at 43-44, 46-47.
Still unable to perform overhead reaching, Petitioner was able to perform
repetitive reaching and grasping for eleven to twenty minutes. Id. at 43, 46.
• Petitioner again failed to show for PT sessions scheduled for February 12
and 20, 2020. Ex. 3 at 45, 49.
• At the next PT re-evaluation (performed on February 26, 2020), findings like
those observed during Petitioner’s two PT sessions that month were again
7

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 8 of 11
obtained. Ex. 3 at 50. It was noted that Petitioner had not returned to work,
had “made minimal progress since [her] last re-eval, and [that her]
attendance ha[d] been inconsistent.” Id. at 50, 52.
• On February 14, 2020, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation carrier petitioned
the NCIC to compel Petitioner to comply with her medical treatment,
specifically to attend PT. Ex. 184-85. On March 2, 2020, the NCIC ordered
Petitioner to pursue treatment or face suspension of compensation. Ex. 4
at 238.
• Petitioner attended her twelfth and last PT session on March 4, 2020. Ex. 3
at 60-62. It was noted that she “tolerated today’s treatment intervention with
mild complaints of pain.” Id. at 62.
• Petitioner failed to show at for her next PT session, scheduled for March 6,
2020. Ex. 3 at 63.
• On April 25, 2020, Petitioner visited the ER seeking treatment for
constipation and lower back pain for the last two days. Ex. 2 at 1065. There
is no mention of left shoulder pain in the record from this visit.
• Petitioner was formally discharged from PT on May 7, 2020. Ex. 3 at 64. It
appears she had not returned as the record states that the therapist was
“[u]able to assess [her] current understanding of prognosis . . . [and]home
exercises program due to not completing plan of care.” Id. at 65. All goals
were marked as abandoned as of the discharge date. Id.
• On May 18, 2020, Petitioner’s orthopedist returned a questionnaire first sent
to him by the workers’ compensation carrier in early February 2020. Ex. 4
at 291-93. The orthopedist opined that Petitioner’s ongoing left shoulder
pain was not causally related to the flu vaccine she received, that she had
reached maximum improvement, that she could return to work, and that she
had no permanent impairment. Id. at 292-91.
• The parties underwent an unsuccessful mediation for Petitioner’s workers’
compensation claim on May 20, 2020. Ex. 3 at 296-97. However, they later
were able to agree upon a payment of $3,500.00 to cover all expenses
incurred prior to July 14, 2020. Id. at 324-36. The agreement incorporated
the orthopedist’s findings communicated in May, and was signed by the
parties on July 27, 2020. Id. at 326, 335-36. The $3,500.00 amount appears
8

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 9 of 11
to be based upon a total of $4,870.36 paid for expenses incurred through
February 17, 2020. Id. at 340. The NCIC accepted the agreement on July
27, 2020. Id. at 337-38.
• During the subsequent six-month period, Petitioner visited the ER on four
occasions: for a rash on June, 19, 2020; back pain on July 21, 2020; a
headache, congestion, and nasal drainage on September 10, 2020; and the
feeling of a foreign body in her right nostril on January 8, 2021. Ex. 2 at
1145, 1245, 1354, 1448. There is no mention of left shoulder pain in the
medical records from any of these visits. Id. at 1105-1479. And no further
medical records have been filed.
• In her declaration, signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1746 on March 14, 2023, Petitioner recounts the details surrounding her
receipt of the flu vaccine on October 16, 2019, which mirrors the history she
provided in her workers’ compensation complaint. Ex. 8 at ¶ 3; see also Ex.
4 at 2. She again insists that she received the vaccine in her left arm. Id.
• Maintaining that she did not seek treatment beyond March 4, 2020, due to
her workers’ compensation carrier’s refusal to provide further
compensation, her lack of medical insurance, and her medical treaters
representations that nothing more could be done. Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 4-5. Petitioner
insists that she continues to experience left shoulder pain daily at a level of
seven to eight out of ten. Id. at ¶ 6.
The above medical entries establish that when seeking treatment, Petitioner
consistently identified her left shoulder as the problem, and attributed her pain to the flu
vaccine she reported receiving in her left arm. She provided these histories (beginning
seventeen days post-vaccination and throughout her treatment) to her employer, the
physician treating her pursuant to her workers’ compensation claim, an ER physician, her
orthopedist, and her physical therapists. In both her workers’ compensation complaint
and signed declaration, Petitioner described the flu vaccine as improperly administered
in her left deltoid. And her employer and workers’ compensation carrier both accepted
Petitioner’s claimed left shoulder situs.
While originating from Petitioner, these statements are also set forth in
contemporaneous records, and should therefore be afforded greater weight than any
subsequent assertion or witness statement. The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical
records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain
information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of
medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Thus, the Circuit has
9

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 10 of 11
instructed that greater weight should be accorded to this class of information, even when
the record in question simply memorializes what the petitioner said at the time.
Although the vaccine record does not set forth the exact site of vaccination, it
clearly establishes that on October 16, 2019, Petitioner received an intramuscularly
administered flu vaccine. Furthermore, the medical histories provided by Petitioner in the
contemporaneously-created medical records and supporting evidence from her medical
providers supply persuasive evidence supporting the conclusion that the vaccine was
likely administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid. By contrast, there is a dearth of evidence
indicating that the vaccine was administered in any other location. I thus determine, based
on the entire record, that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence establishing that
the flu vaccine to which Petitioner attributes her SIRVA was most likely administered in
her left deltoid on October 16, 2019.
III. Scheduling Order
Although I have ruled in Petitioner’s favor on the issue of situs, Respondent still
opposes compensation. Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 15. He argues that Petitioner has also
failed to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s six-month severity requirement, or the third criterion for
a Table SIRVA injury. Id. at 10-12; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii).
Expert testimony may be needed to address these issues. Petitioner has provided
credible reasons for her failure to seek medical treatment past March 2020. And her
actions during the remainder of 2020, and early 2021 - seeking medical care only through
ER visits - supports her assertions. But she failed to mention any ongoing left shoulder
issues at these appointments, or to seek treatment at the ER for her shoulder condition.
Additionally, Petitioner’s condition prior to and after her last PT session on March
4, 2020 (less than five months post-vaccination) is difficult to ascertain based upon the
record as it currently stands. Specifically, Petitioner’s descriptions of severe pain run
counter to her failure, not adequately addressed, to attend over one-half of the scheduled
PT sessions. Such a failure to pursue medical treatment is usually indicative of a milder
shoulder injury. Additionally, Petitioner’s reported pain levels remained severe despite
improvements in strength and ROM gained during PT session attended, during which she
experienced only mild to moderate pain.
Furthermore, some of the symptoms Petitioner reported (for example numbness
and tingling traveling to her fingertips, as well as her MRI results) further complicated both
remaining issues. After reviewing the MRI results, Petitioner’s orthopedist noted no
evidence of her persistent pain.
10

Case 1:21-vv-00158-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/09/25 Page 11 of 11
Although her workers’ compensation carrier originally found Petitioner entitled to a
damages award, the carrier clearly disputed a causal link between the vaccine she
received and at least her later symptoms. And the May 2020 medical opinion from
Petitioner’s orthopedist, although lacking important details regarding its basis and timing,
supported that contention. Further, the informal workers’ compensation agreement
appears to be based upon a vaccine-related injury through only February 17, 2020, only
four months post-vaccination.
Still, Petitioner’s injury was compensated by her workers’ compensation carrier.
And some of the documentation related to the agreement supports a longer lasting injury.
Specifically, the agreement indemnifies the carrier through late July 2020.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient litigative risk on both sides to make
exploration of settlement wise. At the same time, however, Petitioner should provide
additional argument and the evidence needed to support her assertions of a Table injury
and six-month sequalae, short of expert testimony.10 And Respondent should more
clearly explain his arguments related to Petitioner’s Table claim.
Petitioner’s motion for a factual finding regarding the site of vaccination is
GRANTED. The parties should file a joint status report, updating me on their
settlement discussions, by no later than Wednesday, June 11, 2025. In the report,
they should state whether they wish to continue their settlement discussions. Even
if settlement discussions are ongoing, deadlines for the parties’ further evidence and
argument will be set at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 However, Petitioner may (and should) seek clarification from the orthopedist who opined that her later
symptoms were not vaccine-related.
11