VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00227
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00227
Petitioner: Carter Schoenborn
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2024-08-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-01
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 21000

AI-assisted case summary:
Carter Schoenborn filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging injury from an influenza vaccine received on October 1, 2020. He claimed to have sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) within the time period set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that Mr. Schoenborn sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the vaccine caused his alleged shoulder injury. Despite these differing positions, the parties filed a joint stipulation to settle the case. The court adopted the stipulation as its decision, awarding Mr. Schoenborn a lump sum of $21,000.00 as compensation for all damages available under the program. This amount represents a compromise of the parties' respective positions on liability and damages. The stipulation also addressed future proceedings for attorneys' fees and costs.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00227-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-29
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/28/2024) regarding 42 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0227V
CARTER SCHOENBORN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 28, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On January 7, 2021, Carter Schoenborn 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 on October 1, 2020, an influenza (“flu”) vaccine was
administered in his right shoulder, and that he consequently suffered a right shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as listed on the Vaccine Injury Table.
Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters (“OSM”)’s
Special Processing Unit (“SPU”).
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 11
As discussed below, Petitioner has furnished preponderant evidence of the alleged
right-sided vaccine administration – but not that he ever suffered reduced range of motion,
as required for a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner’s Table claim must therefore be
dismissed, although he will be permitted to pursue an “off-Table” claim based on the same
facts.
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted above, Petitioner initiated the claim in early 2021. He subsequently
confirmed that his medical treatment course had concluded, and he conveyed a demand
for pain and suffering, plus out-of-pocket expenses, for Respondent’s consideration.
Status Report filed July 28, 2022 (ECF No. 27). Respondent entered into settlement
discussions. Status Report filed Oct. 3, 2022 (ECF No. 29). However, the parties could
not informally resolve the case. Status Report filed Jan. 18, 2023 (ECF No. 34).
Accordingly, Respondent formally presented his opposition to compensation for a
Table SIRVA, because he disputed 1) the alleged vaccine administration site, and 2) that
Petitioner suffered limited range of motion. Rule 4(c) Report filed Mar. 20, 2023 (ECF No.
36). The parties subsequently received my preliminary reaction to those issues, were
again encouraged to pursue informal resolution, and given a schedule for filing any
additional evidence and briefing. Scheduling Order filed June 29, 2023 (ECF No. 38)
(memorializing a telephonic status conference held the previous day). The parties did not
change their positions however, and they briefed the Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner’s
Memorandum filed Aug. 14, 2023 (ECF No. 39) (hereinafter “Brief”); Respondent’s
Response filed Oct. 5, 2023 (ECF No. 41).3 Petitioner did not avail himself of the
opportunity to file a Reply by the specified deadline of October 20, 2023, or seek any
modification of the schedule. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. Authority
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
3 With my permission, the parties also briefed their respective positions on an appropriate damages award
in the potential event that Petitioner first prevailed on the disputed entitlement issues and consequently
established a Table SIRVA claim. But as explained herein, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim must be
dismissed for failure to establish reduced range of motion.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 11
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,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
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g., tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a
neurological injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve
conduction studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would
4 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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 11
not support SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the
neurological abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be
considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the
following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
III. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all submitted evidence including all medical records and affidavits,
as well as the Petition, the Rule 4(c) Report, and both parties’ briefing. The following
section focuses on the evidence most relevant to the disputed issues: situs and range of
motion.
• Upon receiving the subject vaccination, Petitioner was twenty-one (21) years old
and in good health. See generally Exs. 3, 6. He lived at his mother’s home in
Massachusetts when not attending college in Connecticut (about 65 miles away).
Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 1 – 2; Ex. 11 at ¶ 5. He was a college senior, majoring in nursing. Ex.
4 at 13; Ex. 7 at 3.
• Petitioner received the subject flu vaccine on October 1, 2020. Three
contemporaneous records have been filed:
o CVS’s computerized medical record lists a vaccine administration site of
“left deltoid.” Ex. 5 at 2 (also appearing at Ex. 8 at 8).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 11
o CVS also retained a copy of the vaccine intake consent form. Regarding the
vaccine administration site, a handwritten notation is unclear, possibly
suggesting either an R or an L. Ex. 8 at 5.
o Petitioner’s own copy of the same consent form contains a clearer
handwritten “R.” Ex. 13 at 1.5
• Fourteen (14) days post-vaccination, on October 15, 2020, Petitioner presented to
the Connecticut Orthopedics practice, where he first completed a medical history
form. Ex. 4 at 15. He reported a right shoulder injury occurring “after influenza
vaccine” and an onset of “10/01/2020.” Id.
• That same day, Thomas P. Moran, M.D., conducted the initial evaluation – starting
with Petitioner’s identification as a nursing student, and his history of right shoulder
pain beginning one day after his influenza vaccine. Ex. 4 at 13. Dr. Moran recorded:
“[a]t the time of the injection, [Petitioner] felt that it was placed high in the arm near
the subacromial space. He denies any loss of motion in the shoulder. It does not
awaken him at night.” Id. On physical examination, Petitioner had “full active and
passive range of motion… positive impingement, no AC joint of bicipital groove
tenderness. Id. X-rays were negative. Id. Dr. Moran’s assessment was
“subacromial bursitis, status post influenza vaccine [with] no evidence of adhesive
capsulitis.” Id. He prescribed the anti-inflammatory medication Meloxicam to take
for the next 7 – 10 days. Id.
• At an October 26, 2020, orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner reported ongoing right
shoulder pain and no relief from Meloxicam. Ex. 4 at 6. Physical examination found
“full range of motion, there is no abduction weakness, negative Speed’s and
O’Brien’s test.” Id. Dr. Moran assessed “internal derangement,” and recommended
an MRI to “rule out any intraarticular pathology,” but he “would not recommend any
steroid injections given [Petitioner’s] age.” Id. at 6 – 7.
• On November 18, 2020, Dr. Moran entered a referral to “physical therapy/
occupational therapy” based on his assessment of right shoulder bursitis and
internal derangement. Ex. 4 at 4. Dr. Moran’s referral order identifies Star Physical
Therapy – with seven locations throughout Connecticut – followed by the following
language: “Evaluate and treat[.] Pain reduction[.] Strengthening[.] Improved ROM
5 After situs was identified as a factual issue to be resolved, Petitioner swore under penalty of perjury: “I
kept my consent form following the vaccination form following the vaccination [and…] provided it to my
attorney.” Ex. 10 at ¶ 2; see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 (providing that a declaration sworn under penalty of
perjury may be afforded “like force and effect” as an affidavit).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 11
– AROM PROM[.] Treatment frequency: 2 – 3 times/ week[.] Treatment duration:
3 – 4 weeks[.] Id.
• On November 30, 2020, Petitioner had a telemedicine encounter with a nurse
practitioner at his primary care practice located in South Hadley, Massachusetts,
for a chief complaint of high blood pressure. Ex. 3 at 23. The nurse also recorded:
“[Petitioner] went to get flu shot on 10/01 – injected into R shoulder[.] Has had
bursitis since[.] Saw orthopedics – ordered MRI and PT[.] Was prescribed
Meloxicam – helped a little[.] Pain was still constant but little improved[.] Decided
not to get MRI, has not started PT bc of school[.]” Id. at 24. The nurse noted that
in approximately two weeks, Petitioner’s school semester would be over, he would
be returning home to Massachusetts, and he “may need order for PT” for his right
shoulder injury. Id.
• The next medical record is from several months later: March 15, 2021, at Pioneer
Spine and Sports Physicians in West Springfield, Massachusetts. Ex. 7 at 3. A
physician’s assistant (“PA”) recorded Petitioner’s history of “receiv[ing] a flu shot
in his right upper arm” followed by “significant pain throughout his right shoulder
and deltoid region” and “difficulty raising his arm above shoulder level.” Id. At
present, Petitioner had “persistent pain at his shoulder… achiness and sharp pain.
Mild achiness laying on his right shoulder at night.” Id. He “ha[d] not done any
physical therapy.” Id.
• During the review of systems at this exam, Petitioner “denie[d] arthritis, stiffness,
and swelling.” Ex. 7 at 4. Physical examination found: “Full range of motion at
bilateral shoulders, there is right shoulder pain with forward flexion and abduction
in the impingement arc. Positive right impingement testing. Tenderness to
palpation of the right supraspinatus and the posterior rotator cuff muscles…
Strength is 5/5 throughout the right shoulder but some increased pain with resisted
right supraspinatus testing and external rotation.” Id. at 5. The PA’s assessment
was rotator cuff irritability and tendinitis with impingement syndrome. Id. Because
Petitioner “ha[d] limited time given his current schedule to pursue physical
therapy[,] would like to proceed with injection management.” Id. Accordingly, he
received a right subacromial corticosteroid injection. Id. The PA noted: “if
symptoms persist[,] additional treatment option would be to order physical
therapy.” Id.
• At a June 2, 2021, follow-up with the sports medicine PA, Petitioner reported that
his right shoulder pain had improved by about 90% after receiving the steroid
injection. Ex. 9 at 3. “[Petitioner] is now graduated from nursing school and has
6

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 7 of 11
some time do some physical therapy for his residual symptoms and would like us
to write this order. He feels some very mild discomfort at his right shoulder with
activities above shoulder level, otherwise he is doing well.” Id. On exam, Petitioner
again had “full range of motion at bilateral shoulders,” with the changes of mild
discomfort with forward flexion and abduction, and a negative impingement sign.
Id. at 4. The PA assessed that Petitioner had “very mild residual right shoulder pain
consistent with rotator cuff irritability,” for which he should “do a short course of
physical therapy to focus on a home exercise program,” after which no additional
treatment should be needed. Id. at 5.
• At a September 27, 2021, follow-up with the sports medicine PA, Petitioner
reported “gradually returning pain and achiness at his right shoulder” particularly
when reaching overhead, assisting patients, and laying on the shoulder at night.
Ex. 12 at 2. Petitioner reported “minimal improvement” with meloxicam. Id. He had
“done physical therapy exercises in the past and also tried taping his shoulder but
his symptoms are persisting.” Id. On exam, Petitioner again had “full range of
motion at bilateral shoulders,” with the changes of pain with forward flexion and
abduction, and a positive impingement sign. Id. at 3. The PA’s assessment was
rotator cuff tendinitis impingement syndrome, for which he administered a second
steroid injection. Id. The PA added that “physical therapy was minimally helpful [in]
the past,” and that if the repeat injection was not helpful, Petitioner could consider
an orthopedic surgery consultation. Id.
• Petitioner has not filed any medical records beyond September 27, 2021, any
records of any formal physical therapy, occupational therapy, or any other
contemporaneous documentation relevant to the disputed issues.
• On December 26, 2020, Petitioner declared under penalty of perjury that he
received the subject vaccine in his right shoulder on October 1, 2020, at his
university’s health fair, which was run by the local CVS. Ex. 1 at ¶ 2. Petitioner
recalled developed right shoulder pain within 48 hours, and ongoing, unspecified
“right shoulder injuries.” Id. at ¶¶ 3 – 4.
• On December 16, 2021, Petitioner, again under penalty of perjury, recognized that
CVS’s copy of the vaccine administration record suggested a left-sided situs. Ex.
10 at ¶ 1. But Petitioner had kept his “consent form” from the subject vaccination,
and provided that to his attorney. Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioner maintained, regardless of
the records, that his recollection of a right-sided administration was correct: he “felt
pain right away after vaccination and related [his] pain to the vaccination
immediately.” Id. at ¶ 3.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 8 of 11
• On January 16, 2022, Petitioner’s mother, also under penalty of perjury, stated that
she was an occupational therapist with experience primarily treating shoulder and
arm injuries. Ex. 11 at ¶ 2. She recalls Petitioner’s complaints of a vaccine
administered “too high” in his right shoulder, beginning in a phone call that same
day. Id. at ¶ 3. Due to the pain, Petitioner had to drive left-handed. Id. at ¶ 4.
• Petitioner’s mother further recalled: “[a]pproximately once per month, [Petitioner]
would come home to work a few shifts at the hospital. When he came home for the
first time after his vaccination, I examined his shoulder and performed soft tissue
mobility work with him, as well as assisted range of motion exercises. I taught him
some stretches, and recommended heat before stretching then ice after. Then he
went back to school.” Ex. 11 at ¶ 5. “The next time I knew he was coming home, I
borrowed the ultrasound machine from the office. When he came home, I did
kinesio tape and ultrasound treatments with him.” Id. at ¶ 6. “The last time I treated
him was after the second cortisone shot in the fall of 2021.” Id. at ¶ 7.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Situs
Respondent disputes whether Petitioner had presented preponderant evidence of
his right-sided situs allegation, in the face of the “conflicting” vaccine administration
records. Rule 4(c) Report at 5 – 6. Respondent states that CVS’s copy of the consent
form “is not high-resolution enough to determine if the person who administered the
vaccine intended to write an ‘R’ or ‘L.’” Rule 4(c) Report at n. 1.
Thus, Respondent’s objection centers primarily on the discrepancy between CVS’s
computerized record indicating “left deltoid,” and Petitioner’s own copy of the consent
form, which indicates a clearer handwritten R. But as repeatedly observed in Program
cases, “it is not unusual for the information regarding site of vaccination in computerized
systems to be incorrect.” See, e.g., Patterson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1919V, 2023 WL 7220783, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2023) (internal citations
omitted). Thus, the computerized form is not entitled to a higher presumption of accuracy
per se.
Respondent suggests that Petitioner’s copy of the consent form was “created later
since it is the same [as CVS’s copy of the consent form] but with different handwriting.”
Rule 4(c) Report at n. 1 (comparing Ex. 8 at 5 – 6 and Ex. 13 at 1-2). Respondent does
not emphasize any particular handwriting differences, however. I can discern a slight
difference in the immunizer’s signature on the two forms. Such a difference might be
8

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 9 of 11
explained by the poor quality of the fax from CVS, or by the immunizer completing two
copies of the form. But there is no evidence that Petitioner’s copy was created later, or is
otherwise inauthentic, particularly because his copy has the vaccine vial’s sticker affixed
to it – corroborating its reliability. See Scheduling Order (ECF No. 38) at 2. Petitioner has
also produced this copy of the consent form under penalty of perjury. Id. (citing Ex. 10).
And the medical records beginning two weeks post-vaccination consistently document
Petitioner’s history of a right-sided vaccination, which in his opinion, caused his right-
sided injury. Id.6 Petitioner maintains these points in his Brief (ECF No. 39), and
Respondent has not presented any further analysis. Compare Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No.
36) at n. 1 and 5 – 6; Response at n. 1 and 5 - 6 (ECF No. 41). Overall, I find that there
is preponderant evidence of a right-sided vaccine administration, consistent with
Petitioner’s allegation.
B. Reduced Range of Motion
Respondent’s second objection is that Petitioner “never demonstrated reduced
range of motion in his right shoulder… Thus, the evidence fails to establish that Petitioner
suffered a presumptive Table SIRVA injury.” Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 36) at 6.
On this point, I previously noted that “[w]hile it is not certain that the Table definitely
requires such a [decreased range of motion] finding (and/or in a particular timeframe), Mr.
Schoenborn may be able to establish that he suffered mild limitations that were managed
conservatively, including through early informal treatment by his mother, a physical
therapist. Again, he may take the opportunity to fil any available contemporaneous
evidence that corroborates the informal treatment program (or identify citations to it within
the existing medical records, in his briefing.” Scheduling Order (ECF No. 38) at 2.
Petitioner did not file any further evidence, however. He otherwise contends that it
is “unsettled law” whether a Table SIRVA injury requires limited range of motion. Brief
(ECF No. 39) at 7. Petitioner argues that if such a requirement exists, “[w]here painful
range of motion ends and limited range of motion begins is up for debate. In many cases,
providers seem to treat them as one in the same, i.e., providers noting range of motion
limited by pain…” Id. In Petitioner’s specific case, he emphasizes the medical providers’
documentation of painful motion and impingement signs. Brief at 7. Respondent did not
6 Although these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still should be afforded
greater weight than more current representations, as they were uttered contemporaneously with Petitioner’s
injury for the purposes of obtaining medical care. 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 instructed that greater weight should be accorded to this
information even when it is provided by Petitioner.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 10 of 11
provide any further analysis. Compare Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 36) at 6; Response at
6 (ECF No. 41).
Shortly after receiving both parties’ briefing here, I concluded in a different case
that based on a review of 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10), “the QAI definition for a SIRVA injury
requires that a Petitioner demonstrate they suffered both pain and limited or reduced
range of motion following receipt of a covered vaccine.” Bolick v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 20-0893V, 2023 WL 8187307, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 19, 2023)
(emphasis added). Although I noted therein that the Table “makes no reference to range
of motion occurring within a specified time-frame,” (Bolick, 2023 WL 8187307, at *7), I did
not determine or propose what kind of range of motion deficiencies are sufficient under
the Table. But (after examining medical records documenting a shoulder injury for over
six months post-vaccination, additional evidence, and briefing from both parties), I did find
in Bolick that pain on movement of the shoulder is “not equivalent to a limitation on
movement entirely.” Id. at *9 (emphasis added).
The same conclusion is mandated in Mr. Schoenborn’s case. As reviewed above,
14 days post-vaccination, he “denie[d] any loss of motion in the shoulder,” and the
orthopedist’s physical exam found “full” range of motion. Ex. 4 at 13. Eleven (11) days
later, the orthopedist reiterated that range of motion was “normal.” Ex. 4 at 6. And there
is no other record evidence of subsequent movement limitations, distinguishable from
experiencing pain simply when the shoulder moved. The Table requires more.
While not argued by Petitioner, I have also considered that the orthopedist
authorized PT and/or OT – listing “Improved ROM – AROM PROM[.]” among the potential
indications or objectives for the treatment. Ex. 4 at 4. However, there are no records
evidencing that the orthopedist had actually reevaluated Petitioner, or otherwise changed
his previous finding that range of motion was normal. The orthopedist’s recommendation,
as well as the mother’s provision of “assisted range of motion exercises” beginning in or
about November 2020, see Ex. 11 at ¶ 5, could have been merely to prevent losses to
range of motion.
Petitioner’s mother apparently treated his shoulder approximately once per month,
from November 2020 until sometime in the fall of 2021, outside of a formal patient-
provider setting – and no contemporaneous documentation of this treatment has been
filed. Otherwise, the available medical records are very sparse, but are consistent in
describing persistent right shoulder pain and impingement, but full range of motion. This
specific information contained within the medical records is not defeated by the lack of
more specific documentation (e.g., exact degrees of motion). And Petitioner’s subjective
10

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 44 Filed 03/29/24 Page 11 of 11
complaints that the pain was worse with movement, see, e.g., Ex. 4 at 15, merely reflects
that the pain was a “deterrent” as seen in Bolick, 2023 WL 8187307, at *9.
At bottom, there are certain core elements of a Table SIRVA, like pain within 48
hours, that must be satisfied in the claim is viable. Range of motion limits need not be
shown to have begun immediately, or even in any specific time frame when compared to
pain – but they must be demonstrated, and they are not the same as a reluctance to move
the shoulder due to pain. Where this element cannot be satisfied, a Table claim is not
viable.
Conclusion
Petitioner has not established preponderant evidence that he suffered reduced
range of motion, as required for a Table SIRVA. Accordingly, his Table SIRVA claim is
dismissed.
As of yet, Petitioner has not alleged an “off-Table” causation-in-fact claim, or
retained a medical expert (appropriately so, given that experts are not routinely authorized
within the SPU context). But there appears to be sufficient evidence of right shoulder pain
persisting for at least six months post-vaccination – thereby fulfilling the Act’s statutory
severity requirement; a very conservative treatment course and limited damages; and no
apparent alternative cause.
It is thus conceivable a non-Table claim could be successful – but since this matter
has been pending in SPU for some time with no success, I am unwilling to allow it to
remain here indefinitely. Therefore, before the case is transferred out of SPU for further
proceedings, the parties should promptly determine whether a tentative settlement
agreement can be reached.
Accordingly, by no later than Friday, March 29, 2024, Respondent shall
advise, by either status report or email informal communication, whether the
parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement of the case. If Respondent
cannot make that representation, the case will be transferred out of SPU pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 3(d) – at which point the parties shall be prepared to promptly discuss
potential next steps with the next special master assigned to the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00227-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-16
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/17/2024) regarding 48 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0227V
CARTER SCHOENBORN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 17, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 7, 2021, Carter Schoenborn filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly related to Petitioner’s receipt
of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the
“Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that he sustained a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set forth in the Table.
He further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this alleged injury for more
than six months.3
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 (2012).
3 But see Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Dismissing Table SIRVA Claim, filed Feb. 28, 2024
(ECF No. 42).

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the
vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that
his current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
Nevertheless, on July 16, 2024, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,4
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $21,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at 2. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment in accordance with this decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 In attaching the parties’ joint stipulation, I have omitted the last page – a Vinesign form that includes
personal information regarding Petitioner.
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

inesign DocumentC IDas: e0 814:211 F-v4v3-60-082F2978--U4N3JA 7 - 9D4oEc2u-m86e0n4t 4543C 2 7F6il8e5d 08/16/24 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
CARTER SCHOENBORN,
Petitioner, No. 21-227V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
V. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1. Carter Schoenborn ("petitioner"), filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine
Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt
of an influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the
"Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 1, 2020, in his right arm.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that he sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. He further alleges that he experienced
the residual effects of this condition for more than six months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages on his behalf as a result of his alleged injury.
1
he signed document can be validated at https://app.vinesign.comNerify

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the
vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury or any other injury; and denies that his
current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with
the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of $21,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment on entitlement in this case, and after
petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before
the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this
petition.
10. Petitioner and his attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
§ 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 5 of 7
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to
paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject
to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award
for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursable expenses, the money provided
pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a
strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in his
individual capacity, and on behalf of his heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 1, 2020, as
alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about January 7, 2021, in the United
States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 21-227V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 6 of 7
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
ofthis Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or
any other injury or his current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the
Vaccine Injury Table.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4

Case 1:21-vv-00227-UNJ Document 53 Filed 08/16/24 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
CARTER SCHOENBORN
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~
~ 9/h ~
cbti-4A\./..__
>
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
MULLER BRAZIL Deputy Director
715 Twining Road, Suite 208 Torts Branch
Dresher, PA 19025 Civil Division
(215) 885-1655 U.S. Department of Justice
paul@mullerbrazil.com P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OFTHESECRETARYOFHEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVICES:
-------
-::...------
;
~
CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH JOSEPH A. LEWIS
Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney
Compensation Programs Torts Branch
Health Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and Services Administration U. S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Health and P.O. Box 146
Human Services Benjamin Franklin Station
5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Washington, DC 20044-0146
Rockville, MD 20857 (202) 451-7495
j oseph.a.lewis@usdoj.gov
5