VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00241
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00241
Petitioner: Janice Lent
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2024-11-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45288

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 7, 2021, Janice Lent filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on October 16, 2019. Ms. Lent was 58 years old at the time of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially opposed compensation, arguing that Ms. Lent could not meet the severity requirement and that medical records did not reflect onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination. The case proceeded to a ruling on entitlement, issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on July 11, 2024. The Special Master found that Ms. Lent was entitled to compensation. The public decision does not name petitioner counsel or respondent counsel. 

Ms. Lent's medical history indicated no prior left shoulder issues. She received the influenza vaccine in her left shoulder on October 16, 2019. She first complained of left shoulder pain on November 1, 2019, approximately 16 days after vaccination, and consistently linked it to the flu shot. Her primary care provider noted "dysfunction of left rotator cuff" on November 5, 2019, and referred her for physical therapy and an MRI. An MRI on November 6, 2019, revealed "tendinosis of the supraspinatus infraspinatus and subscapularis tendons" and "mild acromioclavicular osteoarthrosis with slight joint hypertrophy." A VAERS report filed on November 14, 2019, stated the adverse event started on October 17, 2019, and that her left arm hurt for two weeks following the vaccine. Physical therapy between November 22 and December 13, 2019, showed improvement, though she still had difficulty with some everyday tasks. Ms. Lent continued at-home exercises, reporting relief of pain. On April 24, 2020, she reported continued left shoulder pain, stating her shoulder had improved with physical therapy but symptoms returned when she stopped exercises. The Special Master found that her symptoms persisted for more than six months, meeting the severity requirement, although this was considered a close showing. 

The Special Master determined that Ms. Lent satisfied the criteria for a Table SIRVA. She had no prior history of left shoulder problems that would explain her symptoms. While the exact onset date was debated, the Special Master found preponderant evidence that her left shoulder pain occurred more likely than not within 48 hours of vaccination, noting that petitioners are not required to provide chronographic specificity and that Ms. Lent consistently linked her pain to the vaccine. Her pain was limited to her left shoulder, and no other condition or abnormality was found to explain her symptoms. The Special Master also found that Ms. Lent met the other requirements for compensation, including receiving a covered vaccine in the United States and not having filed a civil suit or collected a prior award for her injury. 

Following the entitlement ruling, the parties stipulated to damages. On September 20, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer for the award of compensation. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision on November 1, 2024, awarding Janice Lent a total of $45,288.00. This amount comprised $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $288.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid as a lump sum check to Ms. Lent.

Theory of causation field:
Janice Lent, a 58-year-old adult, received an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. She alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The case proceeded as a Table claim. The Special Master found that Ms. Lent met the Table criteria for SIRVA: no prior history of left shoulder pain or dysfunction, onset of pain more likely than not within 48 hours of vaccination (despite initial complaint on November 1, 2019, and VAERS report suggesting October 17, 2019, onset), pain limited to the left shoulder, and no other condition explaining the symptoms. The Special Master also found the injury persisted for more than six months, meeting the severity requirement. The public decision does not name specific medical experts or detail the mechanism of injury beyond the general understanding of SIRVA. The parties stipulated to damages, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded Ms. Lent $45,288.00 ($45,000.00 for pain and suffering, $288.00 for past unreimbursable expenses) in a decision dated November 1, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00241-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-12
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/11/2024) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-241V
UNPUBLISHED
JANICE LENT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 11, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 7, 2021, Janice Lent 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 2. 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-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
On February 15, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation. ECF No. 30. Specifically, Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot meet
the severity requirement of the Vaccine Act, and that the medical records do not reflect
onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 9 – 11. On April 11, 2023,
Petitioner was ordered to submit a Motion for a Ruling on the Record, as well as any
additional information addressing issues raised in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report.
Petitioner did so on July 12, 2023. ECF No. 34 (“Mot.”). Respondent opposed the
motion on August 14, 2023, reiterating the arguments set forth in the Rule 4(c) Report.
Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF
No. 35. Petitioner filed a reply on August 22, 2023. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages (“Reply”),
ECF No. 36. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner’s past medical history includes no reports of left shoulder issues.
Amended Petition at 1. On October 16, 2019, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her
left shoulder at the Federal Occupational Health Unit. Ex. 2.
On October 25, 2019, Petitioner had an annual physical exam with Amanda
Bridges, CRNP. Ex. 3 at 13 – 16. There was no mention of left shoulder pain at this time.
Id. at 14.
On November 1, 2019, Petitioner went to the Forrestal Occupational Health Unit
with complaints of left shoulder pain. Ex. 12 at 7. Petitioner informed the health care
provider that the pain had been consistent since receiving her vaccination on October 16,
2019. The provider noted that Petitioner refused administration of ibuprofen, aspirin or
acetaminophen, as well as application of the “RICE” protocol (Rest, Ice, Compression
and Elevation). Id. at 8. Petitioner was advised to take Tylenol or ibuprofen at home, apply
heat and follow up with urgent care or primary care physician. Id. at 9. A formal incident
report was prepared.
On November 5, 2019, Petitioner’s contacted her primary care provider reporting
left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 10. The record states Petitioner said she was experiencing
“pain in left shoulder after flu shot” given “around 10/24/19.” Id. A treater found Petitioner
to have “dysfunction of left rotator cuff”. Id. at 11. Petitioner was referred to physical
therapy, scheduled for an MRI, and a 3 week follow up appointment. The MRI was
2

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 8
performed on November 6, 2019. Ex. 4. Petitioner was found to have “tendinosis of the
supraspinatus infraspinatus and subscapularis tendons” and a “mild acromioclavicular
osteoarthrosis with slight joint hypertrophy”. Id. at 6.
Petitioner later filed a VAERS report on November 14, 2019. Ex. 13. The report
states that Petitioner received a vaccine on October 16, 2019, that the adverse event
started on October 17, 2019, and that “her left arm still hurt 2 weeks following the vaccine.”
Id. at 3-4.
Petitioner had three physical therapy visits between November 22, 2019, and
December 13, 2019. Ex. 5. Charles Cocke, DPT, noted that Petitioner had “been doing
her [home exercise program] and feels her shoulder is improving with less pain,” and that
she was tolerating treatments well, although she was still having difficulty with some
everyday tasks including washing hair and getting dressed. Id at 2.
In her affidavit, Petitioner states that along with “difficulty” taking time off work,
using her sick hours had a “monetary value” and would be added to her retirement fund
upon retirement. Ex. 1 at 3, Ex. 15 at 3. Because of this, Petitioner decided to stop
attending her appointments and preform her therapy at home. Ex. 15 at 3. From January
through April 2020, due to cost expenses and the COVID-19 Pandemic, Petitioner
continued to perform her at-home shoulder exercises with relief of her shoulder pain. Id.
at 3.
On April 24, 2020, Petitioner had a televisit appointment with a treater for
“continued left shoulder pain.” Ex. 6 at 4. Petitioner was noted to have full range of motion
in her shoulder although no physical examination took place. Id. The record states that
Petitioner’s left shoulder “[i]mproved completely with PT. [T]hen a few days ago,
symptoms returned.” Petitioner stated in her affidavit that she informed the treater that
her shoulder felt “significantly better for approximately two (2) weeks,” but pain returned
when she stopped preforming the exercises. Ex. 1 at 3 – 4.
On October 14, 2020, Petitioner had a follow-up appointment for a non-related
issue and received her yearly flu shot in the left arm. Ex. 6 at 2 -3. There were no reports
of any pain in the left shoulder from this vaccination.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
3

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 8
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 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 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
3 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-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 8
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.
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. Severity Requirement
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she
suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months
after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine
Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 16, 2019.
Therefore, she must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual symptoms
continued at least through April 16, 2020 (assuming onset of pain the day of vaccination).
See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070,
at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012)
(dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's injury resolved less than
two months after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred between
November and December 2019. Ex. 5. After her last physical therapy appointment on
December 13, 2019, Petitioner next mentioned shoulder pain on April 24, 2020, stating
5

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 8
that her pain improved but had returned when she stopped performing her exercises. Ex.
6 at 4, Ex. 1 at 3 – 4.
Respondent argues that Petitioner did not seek treatment for her shoulder after
December 13, 2019, and that it had “completely improved” by April 2020. Opp. at 6-7.
However, as stated above, there are references to continued sequelae from Petitioner’s
SIRVA through at least April 23, 2020. Further, the record from April 24, 2020, states that
Petitioner sought care for “continued left shoulder pain” (emphasis added), indicating that
her shoulder had not completely improved. Ex. 6 at 4.
The overall record thus constitutes a sufficient, albeit close, showing of severity to
meet the evidentiary standard. It is likely that Petitioner’s symptoms persisted throughout
the winter of 2020 and through the six-month deadline, despite the cessation of formal
treatment and subsequent gap. However, the consistently light history of treatment
suggests a mild injury - which will likely impact damages in this case.
B. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates 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 medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain sixteen days after her November 1,
2019, vaccination, stating that she had shoulder pain following her flu vaccine. Ex. 12 at
7. Thereafter, she consistently linked her shoulder pain to the flu shot. See Ex. 3 at 10
(record from November 5, 2019 stating that Petitioner had pain in her left shoulder after
a flu shot); Ex. 13 at 3-4 (VAERS report stating that Petitioner’s adverse event started on
October 17, 2019).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 8
Respondent argues that Petitioner inconsistently reported the vaccination date as
October 16, “which suggests the onset of her symptoms may have been on or about
October 24, 2019. Opp. at 11. Further, Petitioner failed to report shoulder pain when she
had a physical exam on October 25, 2019. Id. Even so, a finding of proper onset can be
made based on such a record. 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 consistently linked her shoulder pain to the
October 16, 2019, flu vaccine.
Additionally, the relevant medical records show that Petitioner reported shoulder
pain in a relatively timely manner, when measured from the date of vaccination Thus,
Petitioner first began to complain of shoulder pain within fifteen days of the vaccine and
did not attribute her pain to any other injury or cause. It is common for SIRVA petitioners
to delay seeking treatment, thinking the injury will resolve on its own, especially since
patients are often told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to expect some
soreness and pain for a period of time after. And individuals also often misconstrue the
nature of their injury, and therefore fail to inform treaters of all specific facts relevant to
onset until later. Here, the added detail of onset did not “wait” for months before being
provided but began to be reported in a reasonable time post-vaccination. And Petitioner
affirmatively and repeatedly linked her shoulder pain to the flu vaccine. Further, it is not
unexpected that Petitioner did not raise her shoulder pain with NP Bridges on October
25, as that appointment was for a specific and unrelated issue, i.e., migraines. Ex. 3 at
13.
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.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/12/24 Page 8 of 8
C. 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. 3; 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 4; 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.
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-00241-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-01
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/02/2024) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/01/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-241V
JANICE LENT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 20, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 7, 2021, Janice Lent 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine she
received on October 16, 2019. Amended Petition, filed May 14, 2021, at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 11, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a Table SIRVA injury. On September 20, 2024, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$45,288.00 (comprised of $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $288.00 for past
unreimbursable expenses). Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
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-00241-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/01/24 Page 2 of 5
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $45,288.00 (comprised of $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$288.00 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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-00241-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
JANICE LENT,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-241V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER
On January 7, 2021, Janice Lent (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended (“the Vaccine Act” or “the Act”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34. On May 14, 2021, petitioner filed an amended petition
(“Petition”). Petitioner alleged that she received a flu vaccination in her left shoulder on October
16, 2019, at fifty-eight years of age, and thereafter suffered from a SIRVA. See Petition.
On February 15, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed
a Rule 4(c) Report, recommending against compensation because petitioner had not established a
Table1 SIRVA claim. ECF No. 30. On July 12, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the
Record. ECF No. 34. On August 14, 2023, respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Motion
for a Ruling on the Record, and on August 22, 2023, petitioner filed a Reply. ECF No. 35, 36.
On July 11, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
1 The Vaccine Injury Table is located at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3.
1

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/01/24 Page 4 of 5
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 37. Respondent now files this proffer regarding the amount
of damages to be awarded.2
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $288.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
2 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 July 11, 2024, entitlement decision.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00241-UNJ Document 47 Filed 11/01/24 Page 5 of 5
the Court’s judgment award the following3: a lump sum payment of $45,288.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Janice Lent: $45,288.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ PARISA TABASSIAN
PARISA TABASSIAN
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-4035
Parisa.Tabassian@usdoj.gov
Dated: September 19, 2024
3 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
3