VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00283
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00283
Petitioner: Xin Jin
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2025-07-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-01-18
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70506

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 7, 2021, Xin Jin filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on January 18, 2020, caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Petitioner amended her petition on July 1, 2022. Respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that Petitioner had not demonstrated residual effects for more than six months. On February 19, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that Petitioner had met the Table criteria for SIRVA and satisfied the statutory severity requirement. The Special Master found that Petitioner's symptoms continued for more than six months, supported by medical records and her declarations, and that a treatment gap between February and September 2020 was credibly explained by her fear of contracting COVID-19 and protecting her elderly mother. On June 23, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for an award of compensation. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision awarding Petitioner a lump sum of $70,506.41, comprised of $67,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,006.41 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Lynn Christina Schlie.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Xin Jin received an influenza vaccine on January 18, 2020. She alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent agreed the injury was consistent with SIRVA but contested entitlement based on the duration of residual effects. The Special Master found that Petitioner met the Table criteria for SIRVA, which presumes causation if the criteria are met. The primary dispute was the statutory severity requirement of more than six months of residual effects. Petitioner's medical records showed initial treatment for left shoulder pain four days after vaccination, with symptoms returning after medication wore off. She cancelled a follow-up appointment in March 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns and fear of infecting her elderly mother, leading to a treatment gap until September 2020. The Special Master found Petitioner's explanation for the treatment gap credible and determined that her symptoms continued throughout this period, supported by medical records corroborated by her declarations. The Special Master concluded that the severity requirement was met. The parties subsequently stipulated to an award of $70,506.41, consisting of $67,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,006.41 for past unreimbursable expenses. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the Ruling on Entitlement on February 19, 2025, and the Decision awarding damages on July 24, 2025. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Lynn Christina Schlie.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00283-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-26
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/19/2025) regarding 46 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0283V
XIN JIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 19, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 7, 2021, Xin Jin filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”), which she amended on July 1, 2022. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine received on January 18, 2020. Amended Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 2 of 11
Respondent agreed that Petitioner’s injury was consistent with a SIRVA, but
opposed compensation on the ground that Petitioner had not shown that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months (ECF No. 34). The parties then
briefed entitlement (ECF Nos. 39, 41, 42). For the reasons discussed below, I find that
record evidence preponderantly establishes that Petitioner’s symptoms continued for
more than six months, thus satisfying the statutory severity requirement, and that
Petitioner has satisfied the remaining requirements for entitlement.
I. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her 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.
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 & Human 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). “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).
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 & Human Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“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) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 3 of 11
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must establish that he or 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 he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they:
(i) suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability,
injury, or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the
vaccine, or (ii) died from the administration of the vaccine, or (iii) suffered
such illness, disability, injury or condition from the vaccine which resulted in
inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.
Section 11(c)(1)(D).
“[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. 17-1013, 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 discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where the petitioner sought care for four
months, followed by fifteen month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
19-1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
requirement satisfied where petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five
month mark.
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
3 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 and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 4 of 11
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“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 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).
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.
B. Relevant Factual History
This ruling contains only a brief overview of facts most relevant to the parties’
dispute.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 5 of 11
1. Medical Records
On January 18, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid. Ex. 1 at
2. Four days later, she was seen by physician assistant (“PA”) Diane Sturgill for left
shoulder pain that she reported began after her vaccination, which she explained was
given too high in her shoulder rather than in the deltoid muscle. Ex. 4 at 4, 13. On
examination, Petitioner’s range of motion (“ROM”) was normal. Id. at 14. She was
assessed with left shoulder acute pain and tendonitis, and given oral steroid medication.
Id.
About two weeks later (February 3, 2020), Petitioner was seen by orthopedist Dr.
Paul McLendon. Ex. 10 at 3. She complained of left shoulder pain after vaccination and
explained that the steroid medication had helped, but after the medication wore off the
pain returned and was now worsening (at a six out of ten level). Id. at 3, 5. On
examination, her left shoulder ROM showed mild limitations and x-rays were normal.4 Id.
at 5. Dr. McLendon’s impression was that Petitioner had SIRVA, with “subacromial
bursitis vs. [r]otator cuff tendinitis [two] weeks after receiving a flu shot in the area of her
rotator cuff.” Id. at 6. He recommended conservative treatment including activity
modification, physical therapy (“PT”), oral pain medication, and potentially cortisone
injections. Id.
On February 24, 2020, Petitioner called Dr. McLendon’s office requesting to come
in again sooner than her then-scheduled appointment of May 5th. Ex. 9 at 30. Her
appointment was rescheduled to March 17th. Id. The record shows that Petitioner
canceled the March 17th appointment two days beforehand, on March 15th. Id. at 29. The
reason for cancellation is noted as “Patient Personal Reason.” Id.
There are no treatment records for Petitioner’s left shoulder for approximately the
next seven months, with Petitioner returning to Dr. McLendon on September 11, 2020, to
follow up on her left shoulder pain symptoms. Ex. 5 at 44. She complained of reduced
ROM, stiffness, and heaviness in her left shoulder, and rated her pain as five out of ten.
Id. at 45. She explained that she “did better for a while after her last visit, but the pain has
since returned.” Id. Dr. McLendon’s impression was left proximal biceps tendinitis. Id. at
47. He recommended that she start PT and return in three months. Id.
Five days later (September 16, 2020), Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation via
telemedicine for pain “following getting the flu shot 01/2020.” Ex. 2 at 65. She had taken
anti-inflammatory medications as recommended, but had to stop due to gastrointestinal
4 Petitioner’s left shoulder active ROM was 170 degrees in forward flexion, 160 degrees in abduction, and
80 degrees in external rotation. Ex. 10 at 5. Normal shoulder ROM for adults ranges from 165 to 180
degrees in flexion, 170 to 180 degrees in abduction, and 90 to 100 degrees in external rotation. Cynthia C.
Norkin and D. Joyce White, MEASUREMENT OF JOINT MOTION: A GUIDE TO GONIOMETRY 72, 80, 88 (F. A. Davis
Co., 5th ed. 2016).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 6 of 11
distress. Id. She had seen mild improvements recently, but continued to have diffuse
shoulder pain, as well as pain with rotation and overhead movements. Id. at 66. She had
difficulty sleeping on her left side, doing dishes, pushing up from a chair, reaching
overhead or behind her back, opening jars and doors, and lifting weighted objects. Id.
She rated her pain as two at best and six at worst. Id. On examination, she displayed
painful ROM. Id. The treatment record notes that her treatment was virtual due to the
COVID-19 Pandemic. Id. at 67. Petitioner continued PT through February 2021. Id. at 5-
62; Ex. 7 at 1-38; Ex. 14 at 4. She also followed up with Dr. McLendon during this time
and underwent an MRI. Ex. 5 at 23-35; Ex. 6 at 1-2.
2. Declarations
Petitioner submitted four declarations in support of her claim. 5 Exs. 11, 18, 19, 20.
Petitioner states that her shoulder pain began a few hours after vaccination, and kept her
“awake all night.” Ex. 11 at ¶ 2. The following day she cancelled her planned activities
and stayed home to rest. Id. By four days after vaccination, she “couldn’t bear the pain
anymore” and went to urgent care after work. Id. at ¶ 3. The steroid medication she
received helped, but the pain returned as soon as she finished the medication. Id.
After Petitioner saw Dr. McLendon in early February 2020, she started taking
ibuprofen and doing exercises, but this did not provide much relief. Ex. 18 at ¶ 2. She
wanted to return to Dr. McLendon sooner than scheduled, so she called in late February
to move up her appointment. Id. Ibuprofen upset her stomach, so she switched to Aleve,
but unfortunately the side effects of that medication were “just as bad.” Id. at ¶ 3.
Petitioner explains that while this was going on, and she was suffering from
shoulder pain, sleep disruption, and side effects of pain medications, “our world had been
turned upside down because of COVID-19.” Ex. 18 at ¶ 4. She stopped taking ibuprofen
because it upset her stomach. Id. With “unprecedented restrictions, bans, and closings,”
and living with her elderly mother, she was extremely nervous about contracting the
COVID-19 virus. Id. For that reason, she decided to cancel her follow up with Dr.
McLendon that was scheduled for March 17, 2020. Id.
Petitioner has been “doing everything I can to protect my vulnerable mom from
contracting the [COVID-19] virus.” Ex. 18 at ¶ 5. She has continued to wear a mask, and
stopped dining in restaurants. Id. She went out only for work and grocery shopping, and
did not allow any visitors to their home until after her mom received her second dose of
the COVID vaccine in March of 2021. Id. She cancelled her routine dental appointment,
physical exam, and mammogram, and missed early detection of breast cancer – which
5 Although Petitioner labeled these exhibits as affidavits, they are not notarized. Nonetheless, they are
acceptable as declarations. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 7 of 11
was found in the beginning of 2021 – and thus required more aggressive chemotherapy.
Id.
Petitioner tried to live with the shoulder pain, but it was “very distracting.” Ex. 18 at
¶ 6. She states that “[p]robably around June of 2020” she started having an odd feeling
inside of her left shoulder joint when washing dishes, as if her shoulder joint was locked
or stuck. Id. Later, this “stuck and stiff” feeling became stronger and more noticeable,
even without activity, and her shoulder pain got worse. Id. Her sleep also worsened. Id.
Advil and Aleve did not reduce the pain. Id. She used ice and a TENS6 unit “almost every
evening.” Id. She paused work to do shoulder exercises a few times a day, and tried
cupping therapy at home – but nothing helped. Id. She became frustrated and moody,
and isolated herself. Id. She now thinks she should have called Dr. McLendon’s office,
but she was still afraid to go to the hospital due to COVID-19. Id.
By the end of August 2020, Petitioner was “unable to bear” the shoulder pain, sleep
disruption, loss of ROM, and other ailments and decided that she needed help. Ex. 18 at
¶ 8. She called Dr. McLendon’s office on August 31, 2020 and requested a virtual
appointment. Id. However, she was told that the appointment needed to be in person so
that the doctor could examine her shoulder. Id.
Petitioner attended the September 2020 appointment with Dr. McLendon in an N95
mask with a cloth mask over it and protective glasses. Ex. 18 at ¶ 9. She took the stairs
instead of the elevator. Id. She then did virtual PT. Id. at ¶ 10. However, she had to stop
PT due to a cancer diagnosis in February 2021. Id.
Daniel Broza, a close friend of Petitioner, submitted a declaration on her behalf.
Ex. 19. He explained that he speaks with Petitioner by phone every night and visits her
at least once a week. Id. at ¶ 1. He and Petitioner had dinner the night of her vaccination
and she said the vaccine had been given too high on her shoulder and she was in pain.
Id. Over the next few days, the pain became worse. Id. Mr. Broza and Petitioner went to
the CVS where the vaccine was administered about a week afterward and spoke to the
manager and pharmacist on duty, who said they would re-train the pharmacist who
administered the vaccine. Id.
Mr. Broza explains that when the COVID-19 Pandemic began, Petitioner was
cautious to protect her mother. Ex. 19 at ¶ 2. Petitioner avoided restaurants and public
transportation, and wore a mask to work and the grocery store. Id. She did not allow Mr.
Broza, or anyone else, to enter her home for over a year – until two weeks after he,
Petitioner, and her mother had all received their second dose of the COVID vaccine. Id.
6 TENS is an abbreviation for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which involves electrical
stimulation of nerves that interferes with transmission of pain signals. TENS and transcutaneous electrical
nerve stimulation, DORLAND’S ONLINE, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=108464 (last
visited Feb. 19, 2025).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 8 of 11
During the Pandemic, Mr. Broza and Petitioner talked about two things every night:
the latest news on the Pandemic, and her shoulder pain and how it affected her sleep,
mood, work, and quality of life. Ex. 19 at ¶ 3. He adds that Petitioner has a high pain
tolerance, never complaining about pain from a double mastectomy, complete
hysterectomy, or side effects from multiple rounds of chemotherapy – but was “very
bothered” by her shoulder pain and complained about it nightly. Id. at ¶ 4.
C. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner contends that the record demonstrates that she suffered the residual
effects or complications of SIRVA for more than six months. Petitioner’s Motion for a
Ruling on the Record, filed Nov. 17, 2023, at *11 (ECF No. 39) (“Mot.”). She asserts that
there are numerous records beyond the six-month mark establishing the continued
existence of shoulder pain, including her September 2020 orthopedic appointment and
numerous PT sessions. Id.
The seven-month gap in treatment, Petitioner argues, was due to the COVID-19
Pandemic and her efforts to protect her elderly mother from exposure to the COVID virus.
Mot. at *12. Petitioner cancelled her March 17, 2020 appointment for this reason. Id.
When she sought another appointment in August 2020, she requested a video
appointment – but was told that an in-person office visit was required. Id. at *13. Petitioner
argues that the lack of any intervening injury, combined with the medical records and
declarations that are consistent with each other and corroborate the medical records,
demonstrate that the statutory severity requirement is met. Id. at *13-14.
Respondent maintains that the record does not preponderantly establish six
months of injury sequelae. 7 Respondent’s brief, filed Jan. 10, 2024, at *1, 5 (ECF No. 41)
(“Resp.”). The record establishes the treatment gap, and then, when Petitioner returned
to her orthopedist in September 2020, she reported that her shoulder pain “did better for
a while after her last visit, but the pain has since returned.” Id. Respondent emphasizes
that the seven-month treatment gap is “even more stark” in this case because the gap
began only 16 days after vaccination. Id. Respondent finds further cause for concern in
the fact that Petitioner had reported shoulder issues several years before vaccination –
although the record he cites (a May 2, 2017 record noting diagnosis of “Shoulder pain,
unspecified chronicity, unspecified laterality,” Ex. 8 at 76) does not specify which shoulder
was affected or provide any details about it. Id.
Respondent further argues that the severity requirement cannot be satisfied solely
with testimonial evidence, but requires consideration of the record as a whole, citing
Colon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 156 Fed. Cl. 534, 540-41 (2021). Resp. at *5.
7 Respondent does not contest entitlement on any other grounds. Resp. at *5.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 9 of 11
Respondent adds that Petitioner did not report any ongoing shoulder problems to her
health care providers via phone, or request telehealth appointments. Id. at *6.
On reply, Petitioner maintains that her shoulder pain did not resolve and then
return – but also that even if this were so, it would not be inconsistent with what is often
seen with a SIRVA. Petitioner’s Reply, filed Feb. 9, 2024, at *3 (ECF No. 42) (“Reply”).
Rather, waxing and waning of symptoms is a “common fact pattern in the Vaccine
Program.” Reply at *3. And Petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit has “stressed the
importance of affidavits as both reliable and ‘objective’ evidence,” citing James-Cornelius
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 984 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Id.
Petitioner argues that she has presented “a completely reasonable explanation for
the gap in treatment, the COVID-19 Pandemic, and her fear that her elderly mother would
contract the virus.” Reply at *4. Petitioner asserts that Respondent “forgets the early days
of the pandemic, when people around the world feared for their lives and obtaining
medical treatment for a non-life-threatening condition was extremely difficult, if not
impossible.” Id. at *5.
D. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
Respondent does not contest the four primary SIRVA QAI criteria, and I find that
they are satisfied. There is no evidence that Petitioner had a pre-vaccination left shoulder
condition, or another condition or abnormality, that would explain her symptoms after
vaccination. Ex. 8.8 The record preponderantly supports a finding that the onset of her
shoulder pain most likely occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Ex. 4 at 13; Ex. 10 at
3. She exhibited reduced ROM, and her symptoms were limited to her left shoulder (where
she received the flu vaccine). Id. at 3, 5.
E. Statutory Severity Requirement
After a thorough review of the record, I find that Petitioner has demonstrated that
she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. In many cases, a
fact pattern like this one – where early treatment is followed by a lengthy cessation of
medical assistance – would be deemed insufficient to establish severity. But the unique
timing of Petitioner’s injury and initial care, coupled with her demonstrated precautions to
protect her elderly mother during the onset of the Pandemic, result in a different outcome.
8 Respondent cites a single May 2, 2017 record of shoulder pain of unspecified laterality (Ex. 8 at 76) nearly
three years prior to vaccination – not to cast doubt on Petitioner’s SIRVA claim, but to suggest that her care
in September 2020 and later could have been due to a prior injury and not her SIRVA. This record does not
specify which shoulder was painful or provide any further details. Moreover, the record indicates that it was
a lab visit, and that Petitioner was seen by a medical assistant who collected blood. Ex. 8 at 76. It is not
clear what occurred at this visit from the record, and I find that it does not cast doubt on Petitioner’s SIRVA
claim.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 10 of 11
Petitioner initially sought care for her shoulder pain only four days after vaccination.
She was given medication that helped – but once she stopped the medication, her
symptoms returned, leading her to consult with an orthopedist. At that visit in early
February 2020, she rated her pain as six out of ten. Ex. 10 at 3-5. Three weeks later, her
symptoms were bothering her enough that she called her orthopedist and asked to come
in sooner than scheduled. However, she then cancelled that appointment.
I find credible Petitioner’s explanation that she cancelled her March 17, 2020
appointment due to fears about the COVID-19 virus and her desire to protect her elderly
mother. It is noteworthy that Petitioner’s scheduled appointment was less than a week
after the COVID-19 Pandemic was declared, and only four days after the start of a
nationwide emergency in the United States.9
Moreover, this is not a case where a petitioner’s symptoms resolved, followed by
a lengthy gap and then resumption of care. At the beginning of Petitioner’s treatment gap,
she was still symptomatic, reporting a not-insignificant pain level of six. When Petitioner
resumed treatment in September 2020, she reported that she had done better for a little
while after her last visit and her pain had returned – but she did not say that her injury
had fully resolved. And there is no evidence that it had. At that appointment and her PT
appointment shortly thereafter, she related her pain to her vaccination injury. She tried to
obtain care via telehealth to minimize her risk. Her orthopedist declined her request for a
virtual appointment, saying that he needed to examine her – so she took precautions and
went to his office. But she attended PT through telehealth for five months thereafter.
I also note that I do not make this finding based on testimonial evidence alone.
Rather, I find that the medical records, as corroborated by testimonial statements,
together establish that, more likely than not, Petitioner’s injury continued throughout her
treatment gap between February and September 2020 – satisfying the severity
requirement.
F. Other Requirements for Entitlement
The record contains preponderant evidence that other requirements for entitlement
are satisfied as well. Petitioner received a covered vaccine in the United States. Ex. 1 at
2. Petitioner states that she has never received an award or settlement, or filed a civil
action, for her vaccine-related injuries. Ex. 20.
9 The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, and two days later a
nationwide emergency was declared in the United States. Centers for Disease Control Museum COVID-19
Timeline, https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2025).
10

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/26/25 Page 11 of 11
Conclusion
Based on my review of the record as a whole, I find that it is more likely than not
that all SIRVA Table requirements are met. I find that the statutory severity requirement
is satisfied by preponderant evidence, as are other requirements for entitlement.
Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record that she is entitled to
compensation is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00283-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-24
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/23/2025) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/24/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0283V
XIN JIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 23, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 7, 2021, Xin Jin filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”), which she amended on July 1, 2022. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine received on January 18, 2020. Amended Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 19, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On June 23, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $70,506.41.
Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
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-00283-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/24/25 Page 2 of 5
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 $70,506.41 (comprised of $67,500.00 in pain and suffering and
$3,006.41 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-00283-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/24/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
__________________________________________
)
XIN JIN, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 21-0283V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 7, 2021, Xin Jin (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq., alleging that an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on January 18, 2020, caused her to develop a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).1 Petition at 1; ECF No. 1. On
February 19, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 46. Respondent now proffers the following
regarding the amount of compensation to be awarded.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $67,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on July 1, 2022, adding additional factual details;
petitioner’s legal claim remained the same. See generally Amended Petition, ECF No. 23.

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/24/25 Page 4 of 5
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 $3,006.41. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). 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 of $70,506.41, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2

Case 1:21-vv-00283-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/24/25 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Lynn C. Schlie
LYNN C. SCHLIE
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) 616-3667
Email: lynn.schlie@usdoj.gov
DATED: June 23, 2025
3