VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00268
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00268
Petitioner: Scott Sterland
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2025-11-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-28
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 93447.18

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 7, 2021, Scott Sterland filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in his left deltoid in Arizona on September 28, 2019 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. He was 63 years old at vaccination.

Mr. Sterland saw his primary care provider ten days later with left arm pain from the flu shot, then saw an orthopedist about one month after vaccination with left deltoid weakness and mild tenderness. MRI showed a partial supraspinatus tear, degenerative changes, bursitis, and tendinosis. He underwent left shoulder surgery on December 12, 2019, then had a platelet-rich plasma injection and physical therapy. Scheduling problems and the COVID-19 pandemic affected therapy. A March 9, 2020 record still showed limited range of motion and inability to play golf.

Respondent initially disputed whether Mr. Sterland met the six-month severity requirement and whether onset occurred within 48 hours. Chief Special Master Corcoran found the records supported Table onset and residual effects beyond six months, despite later treatment gaps. Entitlement was granted on August 20, 2025. On November 19, 2025, the Chief Special Master awarded $93,447.18, consisting of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,447.18 for past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner, age 63; influenza vaccine September 28, 2019; left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. PCP ten days later, orthopedist one month later, MRI partial supraspinatus tear/degenerative changes/bursitis/tendinosis, Dec. 12, 2019 surgery, PRP, PT affected by scheduling/COVID. SM Corcoran found onset within 48 hours and six-month severity. Entitlement August 20, 2025; damages November 19, 2025. Award $93,447.18 = $90,000 pain/suffering + $3,447.18 expenses.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00268-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/20/2025) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0268V
SCOTT STERLAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 20, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 7, 2021, Scott Sterland 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on September 28,
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 more likely than not suffered
the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, that he has provided
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 2 of 7
preponderant evidence of onset within 48 hours, and that he has satisfied all of the other
requirements of a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner is therefore entitled to compensation
under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On October 26, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contesting
entitlement. ECF No. 30. Respondent argued that Petitioner has not met the statutory
severity requirement, and that he cannot show that the onset of his pain occurred within
forty-eight hours of vaccination. Rule 4(c) Report at 5-9. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a
Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on March 3, 2024. ECF No. 34. Respondent filed
a response (“Resp.”) on July 10, 2024 and Petitioner filed a reply on August 20, 2024.
ECF No. 37, 39.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Facts
Petitioner was 63 years old when he received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on
September 28, 2019, in Arizona. Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner saw his primary care provider
(“PCP”) ten days later with complaints of left arm pain “from his flu shot.” Ex. 2 at 5-6.
Approximately one month later, on November 5, 2019, Petitioner saw an
orthopedist. Ex. 3 at 19-21. He reported “pain in his left shoulder with an onset on
09/28/19 . . . after having a flu shot.” Id. at 20. On exam, he exhibited weakness and mild
tenderness of the left deltoid. Id. at 21. An MRI and an EMG were ordered. Id. The MRI
showed a partial tear of the supraspinatus, degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular
joint, moderate bursitis, and tendinosis. Id. at 29. The EMG was normal. Id. at 25.
Petitioner had surgery on his left shoulder on December 12, 2019. Ex. 3 at 7-8.
During surgery, platelet-rich plasma was injected into the rotator cuff repair. Id. at 8. He
returned to the orthopedist five days later wearing an immobilizer and with minimal pain.
Id. at 18-19. He returned two weeks later for another post-operative evaluation with
complaints of aching pain and difficulty sleeping. Id. at 16. He was given home exercises.
Id. at 16-17.
On February 3, 2020, Petitioner returned for a two-month post-surgical follow-up.
Ex. 3 at 12. He reported limited range of motion and a “continued ache.” Id. at 14. He was
referred to physical therapy, which he began physical therapy on February 7, 2020. Id.;
Ex. 5 at 11. He had one additional PT session on February 10, 2020. Id. at 20. Petitioner
explained that the physical therapy provider was open only three days per week and that
he had to take a new job that required travel out of town, making scheduling difficult. Ex.
8 at ¶13.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 3 of 7
Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on March 9, 2020, reporting that he had
stopped physical therapy due to the difficulty with scheduling. Ex. 3 at 10-11. At that time,
his “range of motion was limited at the extremes” and he was unable to play golf. Id. at
11. He was referred to a different physical therapy practice and instructed to follow up in
one month “to assess progress.” Id. Petitioner states that “about that time, COVID-19
kicked in and everything was shutting down.” Ex. 8 at ¶13. He “continued to do stretching
at home and on the road.” Id. at ¶14.
Seven months later, Petitioner saw his PCP on October 2, 2020. Ex. 6 at 9-10. Left
shoulder pain was noted as a diagnosis, however, no treatment was recommended. Id.
at 10. He returned on December 18, 2020 for an annual exam. Id. at 6. Again, left shoulder
pain was documented as a diagnosis, but no treatment was recommended. Id.
Petitioner saw his orthopedist for right knee pain on March 31, 2021, and on April
13, 2021. Ex. 7 at 20, 23-24. There is no mention of shoulder pain at those appointments.
On March 10, 2022 – approximately two years after his previous shoulder
treatment - Petitioner returned to his orthopedist. Ex. 7 at 16. The chief complaint was
“left shoulder problem.” Id. On exam, Petitioner had full range of motion, but “discomfort
at the extremes” and positive impingement signs. Id. at 17. A second MRI was ordered.
Id.
No further treatment records have been filed.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
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). The Vaccine Act also requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects
or complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
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 Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 4 of 7
“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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
4

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 5 of 7
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act § 11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. §
13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Severity
To establish six months of residual symptoms, Petitioner must demonstrate that
they continued until at least March 28, 2020. There is no dispute that Petitioner sought
treatment for his shoulder pain through March 9, 2020 (five months and 11 days after
vaccination), and then did not seek shoulder-specific treatment again for approximately
two years. Respondent argues that this gap in treatment defeats severity, and that
Petitioner’s attempts to explain it are “not sufficiently credible and compelling to overcome
the objective record evidence.” Resp. at 6.
Respondent seems to suggest that Petitioner must prove continuous symptoms
through the entirety of a gap in treatment in order to satisfy the severity requirement. But
the Act requires only that he prove that his symptoms lasted for 19 days beyond his
orthopedist appointment on March 9, 2020. The record of that visit documents ongoing
symptoms (limited range of motion), and that Petitioner’s limitations were severe enough
that he could not play golf. Ex. 3 at 11. He was referred to a different physical therapy
practice and instructed to follow up in one month “to assess progress.” Id. Thus, at that
time, Petitioner continued to experience symptoms that impacted his life, and his
5

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 6 of 7
orthopedist believed that he required treatment for at least an additional month, if not
more.
Petitioner stated that he was unable to receive physical therapy treatment from the
first provider to whom he was referred due to limited hours and his new job. Ex. 8 at ¶13.
Petitioner’s medical records corroborate his claims. See Ex. 3 at 10-11. He further noted
that once he had a referral to a new provider (which he received on March 9, 2020), the
Covid-19 Pandemic impacted his ability to get treatment. Id. As most Pandemic
shutdowns across the country began in mid-March 2020, I deem this a credible
explanation for why he did not continue to treat the shoulder pain at that time.
Thus, after consideration of the entire record, I find that the evidence
preponderates in Petitioner’s favor on this issue – at least that he continued to suffer
symptoms for an additional 19 days from March 9, 2020 through March 28, 2020.
However, the almost two-year gap in treatment, during which Petitioner treated other
conditions, including right knee pain, undercuts the severity of the injury – and is a
significant factor when determining damages in this case.
B. Onset
Respondent next argues that Petitioner has not established Table onset because
he “had no documented visits to a medical provider within 48 hours of his flu vaccination,”
and notes that “the record documents that Petitioner first presented to his PCP on October
8, 2019, ten days after vaccination.” Resp. at 7.
Respondent’s argument ignores several medical records that either relate
Petitioner’s pain to his flu shot, or explicitly state onset occurred within 48 hours. See Ex.
2 at 5-6 (complaints of left arm pain from his flu shot that was worsening); Ex. 3 at 20
(reporting “pain in his left shoulder with an onset on 09/28/19 . . . after having a flu shot.”).
Petitioner’s medical records corroborate onset beginning within 48 hours after
vaccination, and there is no evidence suggesting a different onset. Further, Respondent’s
suggestion that petitioners must seek care within 48 hours of vaccination is not only
contrary to what this element requires, but would impose a burden of proof far above a
preponderance of evidence, and one that very few petitioners could meet.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to conclude that the onset of
Petitioner’s pain began within forty-eight hours of his vaccination.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 42 Filed 09/22/25 Page 7 of 7
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that his pain began
within 48 hours of his vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). Respondent has not
contested Petitioner’s proof on the remaining elements of a Table SIRVA. See 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iii-iv). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence to establish that he suffered a Table SIRVA injury.
B. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, he need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, he must satisfy the other requirements of
Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of injury, and
the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
The vaccine record shows that Petitioner received an influenza vaccination in his
left deltoid on September 28, 2019 in Arizona. Ex. 1 at 1; Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). Additionally, Petitioner has stated that he has not filed any
civil action or received any compensation for his vaccine-related injury, and there is no
evidence to the contrary. See Ex. 8 at ¶24; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
And as noted above, I have found that severity has been established. See Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all
requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case. A separate damages order will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00268-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-01-07
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/19/2025) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0268V
SCOTT STERLAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 19, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 7, 2021, Scott Sterland 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination he received on September
28, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
On August 20, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for his SIRVA. On November 19, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $93,447.18,
comprised of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,447.18 for past unreimbursable
expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with
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-00268-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 5
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 $93,447.18, comprised of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$3,447.18 for past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
SCOTT STERLAND, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-268V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 7, 2021, Scott Sterland (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”
or “Act”), alleging that he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine she received on September 28, 2019. Petition at 1. On October 26, 2023, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is
not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a Table injury for SIRVA after a
flu vaccination. ECF No. 30. On August 20, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on
Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. 1 ECF No. 40.
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 April 8, 2025 entitlement ruling.

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 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 he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $3,447.18. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award and Recommended Payments Following Judgement
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following:2
A lump sum payment of $93,447.18 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Scott Sterland.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00268-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/07/26 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Mitchell Jones
MITCHELL JONES
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) 305-1748
mitchell.jones@usdoj.gov
DATED: November (cid:20)(cid:28), 2025
3