VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00334
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00334
Petitioner: Robert Lenhart
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-05-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-02-19
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 33000

AI-assisted case summary:
Robert Lenhart filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on February 19, 2020. The initial ruling on entitlement found that Mr. Lenhart's pain onset occurred within 48 hours of his vaccination and that he met all requirements for a Table SIRVA claim, entitling him to compensation. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing Mr. Lenhart failed to prove the onset of pain within 48 hours. However, subsequent medical records consistently linked his pain to the vaccination, and the court found preponderant evidence supported the claim. The case proceeded to a damages award. On April 11, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, recommending $33,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Mr. Lenhart agreed to. The court issued a decision awarding this lump sum payment to Mr. Lenhart on May 20, 2024.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00334-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-23
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/23/2024 ) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0334V
ROBERT LENHART, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 23, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ , for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 9, 2021, Robert Lenhart 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on February 19,
2020. Petition at ¶1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that the onset of Petitioner’s pain more
likely than not occurred within 48 hours of his vaccination, and that he has satisfied all of
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-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 7
the requirements of a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On July 22, 2022, Respondent filed a status report indicating that he was amenable
to settlement discussions. ECF No. 26. After a period of negotiation, the parties reached
an impasse on January 30, 2023. ECF No. 33. Accordingly, on March 23, 2023,
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and a Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”). See ECF No. 35.
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to compensation
because he has not provided preponderant evidence that the onset of his pain occurred
within 48 hours of his vaccination. Mot. at 9-10. Petitioner filed responses to Respondent’s
Motion on March 29, 2023 (“Resp. 3/29/23”), May 4, 2023 (“Resp. 5/4/23”), and May 31,
2023 (Resp. 5/31/23”). ECF No. 36, 39-40. Respondent filed a reply (“Repl.”) on April 28,
2023. ECF No. 38.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on February 19, 2020, at a
Walmart Pharmacy in Peoria, AZ. Ex. 2 at 8-9. He has stated that he “continued” to have
pain during the weeks following his vaccination. Ex. 1 at ¶2.
On April 3, 2020, Petitioner had a cystoscopy and was diagnosed with outlet
obstruction secondary to enlarged prostate. Ex. 6 at 17-19. On April 8, 2020, he had a
telemedicine cardiology appointment. Ex. 4 at 7-11. Petitioner did not report shoulder pain
at either visit.
The first record documenting a potential shoulder injury comes from the same
month. On April 20, 2020, Mr. Lenhart had an appointment with his primary care provider
(“PCP”) for a pre-operative examination. Ex. 3 at 19-23. During the visit, he reported left
shoulder pain “present the last few weeks. Admits to increased pain associated with extra
use with painting and house maintenance projects.” Id. at 20. The record further states
that Petitioner “does admit to some left shoulder pain that occurred after doing some
significant painting. The left shoulder does wake him at night.” Id. The assessment was
bursitis and Petitioner was encouraged to use over-the-counter medications and ice, and
to follow up in 3-4 weeks. Id.
On May 20, 2020, Petitioner returned to his PCP with continued complaints of
“throbbing pain that has been present for the past 3 months.” Ex. 3 at 12. Petitioner
specifically stated that he received a flu vaccination on February 19th, and that “the pain
2

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 3 of 7
started after the injection and never stopped hurting.” Id. He was assessed with bursitis
and rotator cuff syndrome. Id. at 7.
Petitioner had x-rays of his left shoulder on May 22, 2020, which revealed mild
acromioclavicular arthritis. Ex. 3 at 87. An MRI on June 15, 2020 revealed a chronic
complete or near complete full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon with associated
fluid in the bursa, indistinct tearing of the infraspinatus tendon with severe focal
tendinosis, small partial-thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon with moderate
tendinosis, mild to moderate osteoarthritis, and a small glenohumeral joint effusion. Ex. 7
at 14-15.
Petitioner returned to his PCP on June 30, 2020, to discuss the imaging. Ex. 3 at
2-5. He reported that his left shoulder pain had improved since his last visit and that he
had begun taking Celebrex,3 which seemed to help. Id. at 3. He was referred to an
orthopedic surgeon and advised to continue taking Celebrex. Id. at 2.
On July 9, 2020, Petitioner saw an orthopedic physician’s assistant for left shoulder
pain that “started in February following a flu shot.” Ex. 7 at 17. Mr. Lenhart was assessed
with a rotator cuff tear and offered treatment options, including anti-inflammatories,
physical therapy, and cortisone injections. Id. at 20. He was referred to physical therapy
to set up a home exercise plan and advised to continue taking Celebrex. Id. Petitioner
was encouraged to consider a cortisone injection if his symptoms did not improve. Id.
On July 20, 2020, Petitioner had an initial physical therapy evaluation. Ex. 7 at 23.
He reported that “he developed left shoulder pain after receiving a flu injection in
February.” Id. He noted that his shoulder had improved and that he “had resumed
swimming ½ hour per day.” Id. His was assessed a 15% functional limitation. Id. Petitioner
was given a home exercise plan and discharged. Id. at 25. He reported that the home
exercises “did not really relieve the pain.” Ex. 1 at ¶9.
On September 18, 2020, Petitioner filed a report with the Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (“VAERS”). Ex. 5 at 2-3. He reported that the “adverse event” began
on February 20, 2020. Id. at 2. He stated that his “arm was still sore the next day from the
shot. Over the next few weeks it continued to be sore in the muscle/upper area.” Id. at 3.
He stated that is arm still hurt at the time of the report. Id.
On November 16, 2020, Petitioner returned to his PCP. Ex. 3 at 97-101. He
reported doing the home exercises every other day, but denied any improvement in left
shoulder pain. Id. at 99. Petitioner stated that he was “hesitant to consider anti-
inflammatory [medication] or cortisone treatments.” Ex. 1 at ¶11. He was advised to
3 It is not clear what provider prescribed Celebrex nor for what condition.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 4 of 7
continue using ice and over the counter medications and to follow up with his orthopedist.
Id. at 97.
Petitioner did not seek any additional treatment after November 16, 2020. He has
stated that he did not follow up with his orthopedist due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ex. 1
at ¶12.4 Id.
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). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion,
judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and
aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section
13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & 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
4 Petitioner stated that in January 2021 he received the Covid-19 vaccine and then on February 2, 2021,
retuned to this orthopedist and received a cortisone injection in his shoulder. However, no record of the
February 2, 2021 visit was filed and Petitioner stated in a Status Report on November 18, 2021 that he
received no treatment after November 2020. See ECF No. 20.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 5 of 7
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
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).
IV. Findings of Fact – Onset
Respondent maintains that Petitioner has not established that his pain began
within 48 hours of his vaccination because the record of his first treatment for shoulder
pain, from April 20, 2020, contains “inconsistent information regarding not only the causes
to which he attributed his left shoulder pain, but also the timing of the onset of his left
shoulder pain.” Mot. at 10; Repl. at 8. That record is admittedly problematic. In particular,
it appears to relate Petitioner’s shoulder pain to painting and other house repairs, rather
than to his vaccination. Ex. 19 at 20. In fact, the only reference to the vaccine in the
record indicates “flu injection 01/2020.” Id. And the only references to the timing of the
onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain are that it occurred “after doing some significant
painting” and had been “present the last few weeks.” Id. Respondent argues that these
statements reveal that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain began significantly after his
vaccination (as the visit was 61 days later), and that the painting was the more likely
“original cause” of Petitioner’s shoulder pain. Repl. at 7-8.
Petitioner argues, in contrast, that the reference to “the last few weeks,” is
“obviously a generalization of symptom onset,” and that “Mr. Lenhart likely meant two
months of pain.” Resp. 3/29/23 at 10. He further highlights that the record, in one place,
states that Petitioner had “increased pain associated with extra use with painting and
house maintenance repairs” (emphasis added), suggesting that the shoulder pain
5

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 6 of 7
predated the painting but was thereafter aggravated. Resp. 5/4/23 at 5. Finally, Petitioner
argues that “clear, cogent, and consistent testimony” can overcome the inconsistencies
in medical records. Resp. 3/29/23 at 9-10.
While Petitioner is correct that reliable testimony can be helpful in overcoming
inconsistencies in records, he has not provided substantially helpful testimony regarding
the onset of his pain in this case. In his signed statement, Petitioner states only that his
“upper arm continued to ache” “over the following weeks” after his vaccination, without
any clear statement of when his pain began. Ex. 1 at ¶2. Further, he states only that “he
mentioned to [his PCP] that [he] was experiencing left shoulder pain” at the April 20, 2020
visit, without any explanation for why his statements about painting and house repairs as
alternative explanations for it should be given less weight. Id. at ¶4. Finally, Petitioner has
not filed any supplemental testimony addressing these issues. Thus, while none of
Petitioner’s testimony conflicts with the information in the records, it does not provide
substantial additional detail either.
Nevertheless – and as Respondent concedes - there are multiple records after the
first medical treatment, but before the filing of the Petition, that not only consistently relate
Petitioner’s pain to his vaccination but place the onset close in time to his vaccination.
Repl. at 7. For example, at his second appointment, on May 20, 2020, Petitioner reported
left shoulder pain “for the past three months” and that he “was given a flu injection on
2/19/2020” with pain that “started right after and never stopped hurting.” Ex. 3 at 12. Then,
at his first visit with an orthopedist that July, Petitioner reported that his pain “started in
February following a flu shot.” Ex. 7 at 17. At his physical therapy evaluation on July 20,
2020, Petitioner reported that his shoulder pain began “after receiving a flu vaccination in
February.” Id. at 23. Finally, on his VAERS report dated September 18, 2020, Petitioner
reported that his pain began the day after his vaccination, which continued over the
following weeks and to the present. Ex. 5 at 2-3. While these records do not negate the
problematic April record, Petitioner need only preponderantly establish that his pain “more
likely than not” began within 48 hours of his vaccination. That preponderance favors
Petitioner on the issue of onset.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that his pain began
within 48 hours after his flu vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). Respondent has not
6

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 7 of 7
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 vaccine in his left
deltoid on February 19, 2020, at Walmart Pharmacy in Peoria, AZ. Ex. 2 at 9; 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. 1 at ¶13; Section 11(c)(1)(E)
(lack of prior civil award). Finally, it is undisputed that Petitioner continued treating his
vaccine-injury through November 16, 2020, which is more than six months after his
vaccination on February 19, 2020. Ex. 3 at 97; 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-00334-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-20
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/12/2024) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0334V
ROBERT LENHART, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 12, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Andrew Donald Downing, Downing, Allison & Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ , for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Robert Lenhart 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 February 19,
2020. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
On January 23, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for his SIRVA. On April 11, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $33,000.00 in pain
and suffering. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
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-00334-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $33,000.00 in pain and suffering 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-00334-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
__________________________________________
)
ROBERT LENHART, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-334V (ECF)
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Robert Lenhart (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(“Vaccine 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 that he received on February 19, 2020. ECF No. 1 at 1. On March 23, 2023, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a combined motion to dismiss and
Rule 4(c) report, in which he argued that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he sustained a
SIRVA. ECF No. 35. On March 29, 2023, petitioner filed a combined response to respondent’s
motion to dismiss and a motion for a decision on the record, in which he requested that the Court
deny respondent’s motion to dismiss and find that petitioner had established a claim for
compensation for a SIRVA under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 36. On April 28, 2023, respondent
filed a combined reply to petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion to dismiss and a reply to
petitioner’s motion for a decision on the record. ECF No. 38. On May 4, 2023, petitioner filed a
reply in support of his motion for a decision on the record. ECF No. 39. On May 31, 2023,

Case 1:21-vv-00334-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 5
petitioner filed a supplement to his response to respondent’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 40. On
January 23, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued his Ruling on Entitlement, in which he found
that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF No. 41.
I. Item of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $33,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
This amount represents 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
the Court’s judgment award the following:1 a lump sum payment of $33,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Robert Lenhart: $33,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
1 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-00334-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/20/24 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Benjamin P. Warder
BENJAMIN P. WARDER
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
Telephone: (202) 532-5464
Email: Benjamin.P.Warder@usdoj.gov
DATE: April 11, 2024
3