VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00350
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00350
Petitioner: Terri Samuels
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-12-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-09
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 65105

AI-assisted case summary:
Terri Samuels filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on September 9, 2020. The Chief Special Master found that the evidence preponderantly established that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, satisfying the Table criteria for SIRVA. The medical records indicated that while she did not seek immediate medical attention, she consistently related her pain to the flu shot once she did seek care. The court noted that it is common for SIRVA petitioners to delay seeking treatment. All other SIRVA criteria and statutory requirements were also met, including experiencing residual effects for more than six months. The respondent did not contest entitlement after the initial ruling. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued on December 18, 2024. The parties agreed to a proffered award of $65,105.00, which included $65,000.00 for pain and suffering and $105.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. Terri Samuels, an adult, received a lump sum payment for all damages available under the program.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00350-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-30
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/26/2024) regarding 45 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-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0350V
TERRI SAMUELS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 26, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Terri Samuels filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 9, 2020. 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-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find that record evidence preponderantly
establishes that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of
vaccination, and that she has satisfied the remaining requirements for entitlement.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was activated on November 18, 2021 (ECF No. 13). When Respondent
had not determined his position over a year later, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on
the record (ECF No. 25). In response, Respondent argued that Petitioner’s motion was
premature because the Department of Health and Human Services had not yet completed
its review and provided a medical analysis due to a backlog (ECF No. 26). Petitioner
replied, arguing that she had established entitlement to compensation and the processing
of her case had taken too long (ECF No. 27). Thereafter, Respondent was directed to file
a supplemental response to Petitioner’s motion or to provide his position. Scheduling
Order (NON PDF), issued Feb. 8, 2023.
On March 10, 2023, Respondent filed a status report stating that he was amenable
to informal resolution, and the parties negotiated (ECF Nos. 28-39). However, they were
unable to reach an agreement (ECF No. 40). On March 15, 2024, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report and supplemental response to Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 42). The
issue of Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation is now ripe for resolution.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his 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).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 9
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).
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 the 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.
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-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 4 of 9
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 the 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
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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 5 of 9
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.
1. Medical Records
Petitioner received the flu vaccine at issue in this case in her left deltoid on
September 9, 2020, at Kaiser Permanente. Ex. 1 at 2. Nineteen days later (September
28th), she messaged Dr. Catherine Twimasi of Kaiser about a possible urinary tract
infection. Ex. 2 at 930. She did not mention shoulder pain. Id. On October 7, 2020, she
messaged her oncologist about her menstrual cycle, with no mention of her shoulder. Id.
at 932.
On October 15, 2020, Petitioner messaged Dr. Twimasi complaining of left arm
pain. Ex. 2 at 934. She requested an x-ray, explaining that she could not raise her left
arm past her breast level and that the pain woke her at night. Id. A left shoulder x-ray two
days later was negative. Id. at 1240. Six days after the x-ray, Petitioner messaged Dr.
Twimasi about “major pain” in her left shoulder. Id. at 937. Petitioner stated that she had
read about SIRVA online and that she had “all the signs of this – pain, limited mobility and
cannot raise my arm to brush my teeth without pain.” Id. She added that the pain had
“gone on for too long and it’s becoming unbearable.” Id. Dr. Twimasi referred her to an
orthopedist. Id.
On October 26, 2020 (now 47 days after vaccination), Petitioner was seen by
orthopedic physician assistant (“PA”) Alfred Phelps for left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 938.
The date of injury section of the record notes “onset after flu shot ~ 1 week[s] ago.” Id. at
939. The history section of the record indicates that her left shoulder had been painful for
“~1 month[s]” and that Petitioner “recalls getting a flu shot prior to onset.” Id. She reported
being concerned about SIRVA. Id. She typically had a little shoulder soreness after
injections, but this was “far worse.” Id. She rated her pain ten out of ten at rest and with
activity. Id. at 939-40. On examination, she had positive signs on the Neer, cross-arm,
lift-off, belly press, and empty can tests. Id. at 942. Forward flexion and abduction were
approximately 90 degrees, and external rotation was approximately 40 degrees. Id. PA
Phelps prescribed a prednisone taper and referred Petitioner for physical therapy. Id. at
943.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 6 of 9
The next day (October 27th), Petitioner underwent a video physical therapy
evaluation for her left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 973. She complained of pain, swelling, and limited
range of motion. Id. at 974. Her pain began “1 month[s] ago . . . . after getting the flu shot
and the pain remained.” Id. She rated her pain as zero out of ten, increasing to seven out
of ten when moving. Id. On examination, her left shoulder active range of motion was 90
degrees in flexion and 70 degrees in abduction. Id. at 975.
On November 18, 2020, Petitioner was seen by orthopedic PA Allison Parver, who
administered a steroid injection in her left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 998. Over the next several
months, she continued to send messages about her shoulder pain. Id. at 1015, 1020-21,
1038, 1048-49, 1082-83. She saw PA Phelps on March 8, 2021 for another steroid
injection. Id. at 1090.
Petitioner had a left shoulder MRI on March 16, 2021, which showed a tiny partial
thickness supraspinatus tear, minimal infraspinatus tendinopathy, mild intra-articular
biceps tendinopathy, findings suspicious for a small labral tear, trace
subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis, and low-grad deltoid muscle strain. Ex. 4 at 72. Ten days
later (March 26, 2021) she saw PA Phelps and received a third steroid injection in her left
shoulder. Id. at 28.
2. Declarations
Petitioner submitted two declarations4 in support of her claim. Exs. 3, 7. She
explains that when she received the flu vaccine in September 2020, she felt “immediate
pain in my shoulder.” Ex. 3 at ¶ 2. Normally after vaccines the pain and soreness go away
after two or three days, but this time “the pain never went away.” Id. The day after
vaccination, her shoulder was so painful that she began taking Tylenol, Excedrin Back &
Body, and Goody’s. Id. at ¶ 3. When the pain persisted, she reached out to her primary
care physician about it. Id. Ultimately, she was referred to an orthopedist. Id.
C. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner argues that her medical records make clear that the onset of her pain
was within 48 hours of vaccination. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, filed Nov.
21, 2022, at *7 (ECF No. 25) (“Mot”). When seeking care for her shoulder pain, she
consistently related her pain to her flu shot. Mot. at *7-8. She also filed a declaration
reporting that her severe pain began immediately after vaccination and “never went
away.” Id. at *8 (citing Ex. 3 at 1). Her “medical records and her [declaration] evidence
work in tandem to provide preponderant evidence of onset within 48 hours of her
September 9, 2020 vaccination.” Id. at *8-9.
4 Although Petitioner labeled these documents as affidavits, they are not notarized. Nonetheless, they are
acceptable as declarations because they comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1746.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 7 of 9
Respondent argues that the medical records do not establish that the onset of
Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Rule 4(c) Report and
Supplemental Response, filed March 15, 2024, at *9 (ECF No. 42) (“Supp. Resp.”).
Respondent emphasizes that Petitioner’s first post-vaccination complaint of shoulder pain
occurred 36 days after vaccination, at which time she did not specify when the pain had
begun or connect the onset to her vaccination. Resp. at *9. She also contacted physicians
twice between the September 9th vaccination and her first report of shoulder pain on
October 15th, for issues that Respondent believes appear to be non-emergent. Id. at *9-
10. Petitioner frequently used the Kaiser messaging system to communicate with her
providers, reflecting an established pattern of seeking medical care in an accessible and
affordable way when needed. Id. at *10. Respondent adds that Petitioner understood that
her post-vaccination pain usually resolved within two to three days, and thus questions
why Petitioner did not promptly message her physicians when this had not occurred. Id.
Respondent adds that Petitioner’s first two reports of shoulder pain do not indicate
when the pain began or relate her pain to her vaccination. Resp. at *10. She did not
associate her shoulder pain with vaccination until her October 26th appointment, after
she had learned about SIRVA. Id. At that time, she reported pain that began about a
month earlier – which would place onset around September 26th, more than two weeks
after vaccination. Id. At her physical therapy evaluation, she stated only that her pain
began “after” vaccination. Id. (citing Ex. 2 at 974). Respondent argues that the
contemporaneous records reflect “vague statements that are insufficient to support a
finding” that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination. Id. Respondent also urges that I consider that she did not connect the onset
of her left shoulder pain with her flu vaccination until she learned about SIRVA. Id. at *11
(citing Vashro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1849V, 2023 WL 6643108, at
*3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 5, 2023)).
D. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
1. Onset
After a review of the entire record, I find that onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
most likely began within 48 hours of vaccine administration.
Petitioner complained of left arm pain 36 days after vaccination. Ex. 2 at 934. She
was first seen by a healthcare provider for shoulder pain 47 days after vaccination, at
which time she related her pain to her vaccination. Id. at 938. I acknowledge that the
record indicates she reported the onset of her pain either approximately one week or one
month earlier. However, when she was seen the next day for physical therapy, she again
related her pain to her flu vaccination. Id. at 974. And Petitioner’s witness statements also
maintain that her pain began immediately after vaccination. Ex. 3 at ¶ 2.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 8 of 9
It is not unusual for a SIRVA petitioner to delay care, expecting the pain to resolve
on its own. See Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0978V, 2024 WL
1071877, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8, 2024) (“[w]hile evidence of a medical visit for
shoulder pain within two days of vaccination would be highly relevant to the question of
onset, in my experience it is much more common for petitioners in SIRVA cases to delay
seeking care for weeks, or even months, in hopes that the pain will resolve without
treatment”); Winkle v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2021 WL 2808993,
at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 3, 2021) (“[i]t is common for a SIRVA petitioner to delay
treatment, thinking his/her injury will resolve on its own” and finding onset was within 48
hours when the petitioner did not seek care until five months after vaccination). Thus, the
fact that Petitioner did not report her pain until 36 days after vaccination, and was not
seen until 47 days after vaccination, does not by itself cast doubt on her claim.
Respondent’s objection centers around the fact that Petitioner’s health care
provider has a messaging system that is accessible and affordable, and that Petitioner
uses frequently – but not in this case. Petitioner credibly explained, however, that she
self-treated with over-the-counter medications, and sought medical advice when the pain
persisted. Ex. 3 at ¶ 3. In light of the limited extent of the delay in seeking treatment, the
medical records linking her shoulder pain to her vaccination, and Petitioner’s explanation
– which is consistent with her medical records –a preponderance of the evidence leads
to the conclusion that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Vashro is not on point. That petitioner was found not to meet two of the SIRVA QAI
criteria: she had pre-vaccination shoulder pain, and when she initially sought care for
shoulder pain, she did not attribute it to her vaccination. Vashro, 2023 WL 6643108, at
*3. In addition, months later – four months after vaccination – she reported that the onset
of her pain occurred one week after vaccination. Id. It was not until over a week later that
she reported that her shoulder pain began on the date of vaccination. Id. I found reason
to give less weight to her reported onset on the day of vaccination because it occurred
after she “followed up with a group that may help provide support for folks that have had
symptoms from the flu shot.” Id. (citing ECF No. 20 at 9; Ex. 3 at 16). This was “good
grounds for giving less weight to the specific cites of onset consistent with the Table,
versus the longer onset reported before those other references.” Id.
While Ms. Samuels described the onset of her shoulder pain imprecisely, she
consistently linked it to her vaccination. And she sought care within a reasonable time
after vaccination, further supporting her claim. The fact that a petitioner knows about the
existence of a SIRVA claim does not, by itself, impair the credibility of their statements to
treaters.
2. Other SIRVA QAI Criteria and Claim Elements
The remaining SIRVA QAI criteria are not contested, and I find that they are
satisfied. There is no evidence that Petitioner had a pre-vaccination left shoulder
8

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/30/24 Page 9 of 9
condition, or another condition or abnormality, that would explain her symptoms after
vaccination. Ex. 2. And her symptoms were limited to her left shoulder, where she
received the flu vaccine. Exs. 2, 4. In addition, the record establishes that Petitioner
received a covered vaccine in the United States. Ex. 1 at 2. She experienced the residual
effects of her condition for more than six months. Ex. 2 at 1090, Ex. 4 at 28. And she
states that she has never received an award or settlement, or filed a civil action, for her
vaccine-related injuries. Ex. 7 at ¶ 9.
Conclusion
Based on my review of the record as a whole, I find that it is more likely than not
that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccine
administration, and that all other SIRVA Table requirements, as well as all statutory
requirements, are met. 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
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00350-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-18
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/15/2024 ) regarding 52 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0350V
TERRI SAMUELS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 15, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Terri Samuels filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
September 9, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 26, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On November 15, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $65,105.00. Proffer
at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
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-00350-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 5
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 $65,105.00 (comprised of $65,000.00 in pain and suffering and
$105.00 in past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
TERRI SAMUELS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-350V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Terri Samuels (“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 she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine she received on September 9, 2020. Petition at 1. On March 15, 2024, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending
that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 42. On August 26, 2024, the Chief Special
Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 45.
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 August 26, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00350-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $65,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $105.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $65,105.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Terri Samuels: $65,105.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy 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-00350-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS
MADELYN E. WEEKS
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) 305-3262
madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 15, 2024
3