VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00221
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00221
Petitioner: Odette DiPietro
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2025-11-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 57834.94

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 7, 2021, Odette DiPietro filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in her left arm on October 16, 2019 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. She had no prior left-shoulder history that would explain the post-vaccination symptoms.

Ms. DiPietro first sought care on December 6, 2019, reporting that she had received the flu shot at Walgreens on October 16 and was still having left-arm pain. Examination showed limited left-shoulder flexion, extension, and abduction due to pain, and she was diagnosed with bicipital tendinitis and prescribed Medrol. Chiropractic records later described cervical pain radiating toward the left shoulder and scapula. At a January 17, 2020 physical therapy visit, she reported immediate pain after vaccination, inability to lift her arm forward or to the side, and pain of 8/10. MRI showed a chronic low-grade SLAP tear, supraspinatus tendinopathy with a low-grade partial undersurface tear, small glenohumeral effusion, adhesive capsulitis, and bursitis. Orthopedist Dr. Scott Greenberg later recorded continuous pain since October 16, tenderness, positive Hawkins and Neer signs, and adhesive capsulitis. By August 2020, she reported that the shoulder was much better but not quite normal.

Respondent challenged onset, emphasizing that treatment began weeks after vaccination and that the December 6 record included a two-week duration entry. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the broader record more persuasive: Ms. DiPietro repeatedly linked the pain to the October 16 flu shot, later records described immediate or continuous pain, and respondent did not contest the other SIRVA elements. He found entitlement for Table SIRVA on September 16, 2025.

On November 13, 2025, the court awarded damages of $57,834.94. The award consisted of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,834.94 for a State of Florida Medicaid lien payable jointly to Ms. DiPietro and Optum. Ms. DiPietro was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine October 16, 2019; left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Dec. 6 2019 still having left-arm pain; limited flexion/extension/abduction; Jan. 2020 PT immediate pain 8/10; MRI SLAP tear, tendinopathy, effusion, adhesive capsulitis, bursitis; Dr. Greenberg positive impingement signs. Respondent challenged onset; SM Corcoran found onset within 48 hours and all SIRVA QAIs met. Entitlement September 16, 2025; damages November 13, 2025. Award $57,834.94 = $55,000 pain/suffering + $2,834.94 Florida Medicaid lien. Petition filed January 7, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00221-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-17
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/16/2025) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0221V
UNPUBLISHED
ODETTE DIPIETRO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 16, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 7, 2021, Odette DiPietro 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
1 In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or
other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon
review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public
access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
On January 3, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation.
ECF No. 34. Petitioner thereafter submitted a Motion for a Ruling on the Record on July
22, 2024. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 37. Respondent
opposed the motion on July 26, 2024, reiterating arguments set forth in the Rule 4(c)
Report. Respondent’s Response to Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No.
38. Petitioner filed a reply on September 3, 2024. Petitioner’s Reply to Response re
Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 40. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner’s past medical history includes prior chiropractic treatment for pain in the
back, pelvic, and sciatica areas. Ex. 3 at 5–10. Petitioner’s records do not include
references to prior left shoulder pain.
On October 16, 2019, Petitioner received a flu vaccination in her left arm. Ex. 1 at
2. Over six weeks later, on December 6, 2019, Petitioner went to urgent care for left arm
pain. Ex. 4 at 11. The record from this treatment event states “10/16/19 got flu shot from
walgreens and is still having pain left arm,” and that she had a vaccination in her left arm
and has had continued pain” Id. Physical exam showed no swelling or deformities, but
“[l]imited flexion in left shoulder due to pain; [l]imited extension in left shoulder due to pain,
[l]imited abduction in left shoulder due to pain.” Id. at 12. Petitioner was diagnosed with
bicipital tendinitis in her left shoulder, and instructed to go to the emergency room should
pain persist, and to follow up with her primary care provider in 5-10 days. Id. Petitioner
received a prescription for Medrol. Id.
Petitioner saw, her chiropractor on December 12, 2019, for new cervical, thoracic
and lumbar pain of unknown origin. Ex. 3 at 10. A physical examination showed
decreased cervical pain that would radiate to the left shoulder and posterior scapula, with
decreased cervical range of motion. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with cervicalgia and
cervicobrachial syndrome. Id. at 11. Petitioner returned to the chiropractor on December
23, 2019, and reported her cervical pain was “occasional,” and would radiate to the left
shoulder. Ex. 3 at 11–12. She also reported thoracic pain radiating to the left posterior
scapula. Id.
On January 10, 2020, Petitioner saw her primary care physician (“PCP”) for a
wellness visit. Ex. 8 at 19–22. Petitioner also reported left arm pain that began in October
2019, when “she went to Walgreens where she got her flu shot in October.” Id. Petitioner
2

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 3 of 8
continued that she returned to the Walgreens over the next six weeks after the shot and
was told they “may have shot her nerve” or may have “shot her tendon.” Id. at 19.3 The
record notes that Petitioner had “not been able to move her arm normally for three
months”, which was confirmed by a physical examination. Id. Petitioner was referred for
an MRI, orthopedic consultation and physical therapy. Id. at 20.
Between January and April 2020 Petitioner completed 22 physical therapy
sessions. Ex. 6 at 71–88; 180-198; 250–267; and 394–412. At Petitioner’s first session,
she reported that she had a vaccination on October 16, 2019 and had “immediate pain.”
Id. at 403. Petitioner continued that she could not “lift [her] own arm to the front or side.”
Id. Pain was reported to be an 8/10. Id. at 404. At Petitioner’s final appointment on April
17, 2020, she reported her pain at a 2–3/10 level. Id. at 73.
Petitioner had a left shoulder MRI on January 20, 2020. Ex. 8 at 37. The MRI
results showed a “chronic low-grade SLAP tear, [t]endinopathy and low-grade partial
thickness undersurface tear of the supraspinatus”, “[s]mall glenohumeral joint effusion
with low-grade chondromalacia”; “adhesive capsulitis” and “mild subcromial/subdeltoid
bursitis”. Id.
On February 6, 2020, Petitioner saw orthopedist Scott Greenberg, D.O. Ex. 5 at
12. Petitioner complained of pain at a level of 8/10, and reported her pain began on
October 16, 2019 and has been “continuous since onset.” Id. at 14. Physical examination
showed “tenderness of the subacromial bursa, the subdeltoid bursa, the glenohumeral
joint region and the lateral cuff insertion”. Id. Hawkins’ and Neer’s test were positive. Id.
An x-ray also showed mild AC joint arthritis, which may be an underlying pathology
unrelated to the vaccine injury. Petitioner received a cortisone injection at that visit. Id. at
16.
Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on April 16, 2020. Ex. 5 at 10. Petitioner
continued to show signs of adhesive capsulitis and reported pain levels at 6/10. Id. No
surgery was recommended at the time, but for Petitioner to continue physical therapy. Id.
at 11.
On August 14, 2020, Petitioner returned to her PCP for an unrelated medical
appointment. Ex. 8 at 10. At this visit Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain was
“[d]oing much better, but not quite back to normal.” Id. Petitioner still had some decreased
range of motion, but was much improved since her previous visit. Id. at 11.
3 Records do not reflect this communication with Walgreens.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 4 of 8
Petitioner next saw an orthopedist three years later on August 15, 2023. Ex. 10 at
1. She now reported chronic left shoulder pain that she attributed to an October 2019
vaccination. Id. at 4-5. Exam revealed limited range of motion and positive impingement
signs. Id. An x-ray revealed mild AC joint arthritis and type II acromion process, but
Petitioner denied treatment. Prior to August of 2023, Petitioner underwent several eye
and esophageal surgeries (Ex. 10 at 3, 5), and received at least three vaccinations in her
left shoulder. Id. at 2.
Petitioner filed a signed declaration on September 20, 2021. Ex. 9. In her
declaration Petitioner describes the events of her vaccination and treatment. Id. She also
detailed how her injury impacted her daily life, including how it affected her ability to do
every daily tasks such as sleeping, carrying groceries, or showering. Id. Petitioner filed a
supplemental declaration on July 22, 2014, describing her experience with the Walgreens
pharmacy and what happened upon her returned to make a complaint. Ex. 11 at 1-2.
Karine Trudel, Petitioner’s daughter, submitted an affidavit as well. Ex. 12. She
stated that she spoke with her mother weekly, and her mother explained the
“hardship during our phone conversations.” Id. at 1. Ms. Trudel explained that this
experience had given her mother “profound anxiety towards taking other recommended
vaccines.” Id. Due to this her mother has “led to her living a more sedentary lifestyle” and
“spending an increased amount of time alone.” Id. at 2.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must preponderantly
prove the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). In addition to
requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and severity of
petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 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
4 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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 5 of 8
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). 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).
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, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 6 of 8
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 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. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
Review of the entire record reveals that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain her Symptoms
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner
meets this criterion. I find that she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The record preponderantly establishes onset of injury close-in-time to the October
16, 2019 vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on December 6, 2019, and
noted that she was “still having pain” in her left arm after the flu shot. Ex. 4 at 11. She
also described the pain as continuous after the vaccination. Id. Further, she linked her
shoulder pain to this same vaccination on multiple occasions. See, e.g., Ex. 8 at 19-22
(record from January 10, 2020, noting that her left arm pain began in October when she
got a flu shot); Ex. 6 at 403 (record from January 17, 2020, reporting her left shoulder
pain began with the October 16, 2019 flu vaccine).
Respondent argues that Petitioner sought treatment nearly four months after her
vaccination, and that her first reports regarding onset do not describe her pain as
immediate. Opp. at 5-6. Additionally, the first records are vague in describing onset.
Further, the December 6, 2019 record states the duration of her pain was only two weeks.
Ex. 4 at 11.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 7 of 8
While Petitioner did delay treatment, and there are some inconsistencies in her
reporting, when the record is viewed in its entirety there is ample evidence to find proper
onset began near in time to the vaccination. Further, Program petitioners are not required
to marshal records setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day and hour
that their onset manifested. As noted above, Petitioner generally linked her shoulder pain
to the October 16, 2019 vaccination.
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this
aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest otherwise.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.5
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on October
16, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 1; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a
covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for her injury. Petition at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
5 Evidence of arthritis may reveal an underlying pathology that is unrelated to the alleged vaccine injury, however
that can be addressed in the damages phase of this case.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/17/25 Page 8 of 8
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
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
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00221-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-15
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/13/2025) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-221V
ODETTE DIPIETRO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 13, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 7, 2021, Odette DiPietro 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”) following an influenza vaccine administered on October 16,
2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On September 16, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On November 6, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation indicating Petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00 for pain
and suffering and $2,834.94 to satisfy a Medicaid lien to the state of Florida. Respondent’s
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-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 6
Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented
that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.
Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as
stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award the following compensation:
A. A lump sum of $55,000.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
Petitioner; and
B. A lump sum of $2,834.94, representing compensation for satisfaction
of the State of Florida Medicaid lien payable jointly to Petitioner and
to:
Optum
PO Box 182643
Columbus, OH 43218-2643
Tax ID: 41-1858498
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Optum.
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-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ODETTE DIPIETRO
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-221V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 7, 2021, Odette DiPietro (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended
(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”), following the
administration of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 16, 2019. 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B); Petition at 1. On September 16, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a
Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation under the terms of the
Act for a SIRVA Table injury.1 ECF No. 41.
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 September 16, 2025, Ruling on Entitlement.

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 6
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$55,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Medicaid Lien
Respondent further proffers that petitioner, Odette DiPietro, should be awarded funds to
satisfy, in full, the State of Florida Medicaid lien in the amount of $2,834.94, which represents
satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of
Florida may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of Florida
has made to or on behalf of Odette DiPietro from the date of her eligibility for benefits through
the date of judgment in this case as a result of her vaccine-related injury, under Title XIX of the
Social Security Act.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
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
two lump sum payments as described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
damages decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:2
A. Petitioner’s Damages
A lump sum payment of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering to be paid through an
ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
petitioner, Odette DiPietro;
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, respondent reserves the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 6
B. Medicaid Lien
A lump sum payment of $2,834.94, representing compensation for satisfaction of
the State of Florida Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and to:
Optum
PO Box 182643
Columbus, OH 43218-2643
Tax ID: 41-1858498
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Optum.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments
a. Lump sum payment to petitioner, Odette DiPietro: $55,000.00
b. Lump sum payment payable jointly to petitioner $ 2,834.94
and Optum in satisfaction of the State of Florida
Medicaid Lien
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
3

Case 1:21-vv-00221-UNJ Document 50 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 6
/s/ Julia M. Collison
JULIA M. COLLISON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-0102
Julia.collison@usdoj.gov
DATED: November 6, 2025
4