VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00376
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00376
Petitioner: Bonnie Graczyk
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2023-10-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-19
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 37500

AI-assisted case summary:
Bonnie Graczyk, an adult, received an influenza vaccine in her left arm on November 19, 2019. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of this vaccination. The injury reportedly caused pain and limited range of motion in her left shoulder, persisting for more than six months. Graczyk submitted medical records and declarations detailing her symptoms and their onset following the vaccination. She reported pain at the injection site shortly after the vaccine, which persisted and worsened over time, interfering with daily activities. Respondent initially contested the onset of her symptoms, arguing that the medical records were inconsistent. However, the court found that the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, satisfying the Table criteria for SIRVA. Respondent did not contest the remaining SIRVA criteria or other requirements for entitlement, such as the vaccine being covered and administered in the United States, and the injury lasting more than six months. The court granted Graczyk's motion for a ruling on entitlement, finding her eligible for compensation. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to an award. The court awarded Bonnie Graczyk a lump sum of $37,500.00 for pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00376-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-17
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/16/2023) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0376V
BONNIE GRACZYK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 16, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 9, 2021, Bonnie Graczyk 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 in her left arm
on November 19, 2019. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
administered in the United States, her vaccine related injuries have lasted more than six
months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever brought an action or received
1 Because this Fact 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 Fact 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-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 10
compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related
injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 6, 17, 20-21. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
For the reasons discussed below, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
supports a finding that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours,
and that Petitioner has met the additional requirements to be entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
The case was activated and assigned to the SPU on April 23, 2021 (ECF No. 8).
On September 15, 2021, Respondent filed a status report stating that he was amenable
to a litigative risk settlement, and requested that Petitioner provide a demand (ECF No.
15). Petitioner served a demand on November 9, 2021 (ECF No. 19), and the parties
commenced negotiations. However, on February 9, 2022, Petitioner reported that the
parties had reached an impasse relating to the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms, and
Petitioner intended to file a motion for a fact finding on that issue (ECF No. 22).
On March 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record, requesting
that I find that Petitioner experienced the onset of SIRVA symptoms within 48 hours of
vaccination (ECF No. 24). Respondent filed a response in opposition on March 22, 2022
(ECF No. 26), and Petitioner replied on March 29, 2022 (ECF No. 27). In the reply,
Petitioner noted that the only Table SIRVA requirement that Respondent had challenged
was onset. Thus, Petitioner requested that I find not only that the onset requirement is
satisfied, but also rule that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA.
Respondent has not sought leave to file a sur-reply. The issues of the onset of Petitioner’s
shoulder pain and entitlement to compensation are 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 the 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.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 10
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).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, 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
received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of 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:
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish receipt of 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;
that residual effects of the injury continued for more than six months (or meet the severity requirement in
other ways not applicable in this case); and no civil suit has been filed and no award or settlement has
been collected for the injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 10
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) (2017).
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.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 5 of 10
B. Relevant Factual History
This ruling contains only a brief overview of facts relating to the onset of Petitioner’s
symptoms and entitlement to compensation.
1. Medical Records
On November 19, 2019, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder at a
Publix Pharmacy in Hendersonville, North Carolina. Ex. 1 at 4. Two months later, on
January 16, 2020, Petitioner was seen by her primary care physician (“PCP”), Dr. George
Murphy, to follow up on unrelated health conditions. Ex. 2 at 15. The record noted that
Petitioner reported that “at the site of her flu vaccine there is still a little tenderness after
several months.” Id. The examination section of the record states that her extremities
were “normal, atraumatic, no cyanosis or edema.” Id. at 18. The record is otherwise silent
as to her shoulder.
Petitioner returned to her PCP a month later, on February 20, 2020. Ex. 2 at 7.
She complained of pain in her left deltoid area, explaining that “the pain started when she
got a flu shot back in November at Publix supermarket. It has continued on and off to this
date.” Id. Dr. Murphy suspected muscular damage or an inflammatory response from the
vaccine, and gave Petitioner Mobic. Id. However, he warned her that “this may be a
permanent thing.” Id. On examination, he noted tenderness to palpation in the left deltoid
area. Id. at 10.
On April 8, 2020, Petitioner was seen by orthopedist Dr. Edward Lilly for her left
shoulder. Ex. 3 at 80. She reported having pain and stiffness in her left shoulder since
her November 2019 flu shot. Id. at 82. She was having difficulty using her arm, and it had
not improved. Id. On examination, her left shoulder active range of motion (“ROM”) was
170 degrees in forward elevation and 75 degrees in external rotation. Id. Impingement
signs were negative, and she had marked limitation of abduction, internal rotation, and
external rotation. Id. She was assessed with adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder, and
an MRI was ordered. Id. at 82-83. On the patient history questionnaire completed for the
orthopedist, Petitioner reported that she sought care for “pain in left arm from flu shot”
and in response to a question about how long she had this problem she wrote “flu shot
on Nov. 19, 2019.” Id. at 86.
On the MRI screening form dated April 15, 2020, Petitioner reported that the
reason for the MRI and/or symptoms was “pain in upper left arm from flu shot Nov. 19,
2019.” Ex. 3 at 84.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 6 of 10
Petitioner presented for a physical therapy (“PT”) evaluation on April 22, 2020. Ex.
3 at 73. She reported “onset of symptoms in her left shoulder started on 11/19/19 after
she got her flu shot.” Id. at 75. The “Problems” section of the record lists “[f]ull thickness
rotator cuff tear – Onset: 04/08/2020, Left.” Id. at 74.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Lilly on June 1, 2020 to follow up on a diagnosis of
adhesive capsulitis and impingement of her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 44. She was doing well
with PT, and was close to 80 percent improved. Id.
2. Declarations
Petitioner submitted two declarations in support of her claim. Exs. 8 and 14. Ms.
Graczyk avers that she felt soreness at the injection site immediately following the
November 19, 2019 flu vaccination. Ex. 8 at ¶ 4. She expected the soreness to go away
after a few days. Id. Her husband received his flu vaccine the same day, and his shoulder
soreness resolved after a few days, but Petitioner’s shoulder remained sore. Id. at ¶ 5.
Petitioner’s shoulder pain was severe enough to limit her range of motion and interfere
with daily activities such as getting dressed, doing chores around the house, sleeping,
and getting in and out of bed. Id. at ¶ 6. She called her PCP after the flu shot when the
pain did not go away, and he told her it was normal and to be patient. Id. at ¶ 7. Following
his advice, she waited until her previously scheduled January appointment to address her
shoulder pain. Id.
Richard Graczyk, Petitioner’s husband, also submitted a declaration in support of
her claim. Ex. 14. Mr. Graczyk averred that he and Petitioner received their flu shots while
grocery shopping at Publix in November 2019. Id. at ¶ 2. He did not feel any shoulder
pain after the shot, but on the car ride home Petitioner told him her left arm was painful.
Id. at ¶ 3. Starting that day, he had to help with household chores and meal preparation.
Id. at ¶ 4. That evening, she reported abnormal pain at the injection site. Id. at ¶ 5. Over
the next several weeks, Petitioner complained of pain with movement in the evenings. Id.
at ¶ 6. He continued to help her with getting dressed and getting in and out of bed due to
her left arm pain. Id. at ¶ 7. Due to her continuing pain, he did all the driving, including to
medical and PT appointments, as she did not feel safe driving with only her right arm. Id.
at ¶ 8.
C. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner cites record evidence in support of her position that the onset of her
shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Petitioner’s Motion for
6

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 10
Ruling on the Record, filed Mar. 9, 2022 (ECF No. 24) (“Mot.”). Petitioner emphasizes
that she reported shoulder pain from her flu shot to her PCP on January 16, 2020, and
returned a month later reporting pain that started when she got her flu shot in November.
Id. at *5-6. She saw an orthopedist in April 2020, reporting that pain and stiffness in her
shoulder since her flu shot in November 2019. Id. at *6. When she presented for PT in
April 2020, she again related the onset of her shoulder symptoms to her November 19,
2019 flu shot. Id. at *7.
Petitioner acknowledges a single contrary notation, found in a PT record, indicating
onset of a rotator cuff tear on April 8, 2020. Mot. at *7. Petitioner asserts that this date,
April 8, 2020, was the date of Petitioner’s orthopedic examination, rather than the date of
onset of her symptoms. Id. at *8. Petitioner argues that other than this single incorrect
notation, the record is devoid of evidence contradicting Petitioner’s assertion of onset
immediately after vaccination on November 19, 2019. Id. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, a
preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that onset was within 48 hours. Id. at
*9.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Response to
Petitioner’s Motion, filed Mar. 22, 2022, at *2 (ECF No. 26) (“Opp.”). Respondent focuses
heavily on the fact that the record of Petitioner’s January 16, 2020 appointment with Dr.
Murphy barely mentions Petitioner’s shoulder pain. Id. at *7-9. Respondent takes issue
with what he perceives as inconsistency between the “minor issues” recorded on January
16th and the more serious concerns recorded at the February 20, 2020 appointment and
in Petitioner’s declaration. Id. From this, Respondent suggests that “it remains entirely
unclear when petitioner started to have limited ROM in her left shoulder, or when she
began to have difficulties sleeping and performing ADL [activities of daily living] because
of pain in her left shoulder.” Id. at *9. On that basis, Respondent infers that Petitioner has
not established that the onset of her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id.
(emphasis added).
Petitioner replies that Respondent incorrectly suggests that the medical records
do not corroborate onset. Petitioner’s Reply, filed Mar. 29, 2022, at *1 (ECF No. 27)
(“Reply”). Petitioner cites prior OSM onset rulings rejecting Respondent’s arguments
about the level of proof required to establish that the onset of shoulder pain occurred
within 48 hours. Id. at 2-8. Petitioner argues that Respondent “continues to ignore this
Court’s clear direction, through its reasoned decisions, and ties up its own resources,
those of DOJ, Petitioners’ counsel, as well as the Court’s, bringing losing legal arguments
as to onset, as he has done in the instant case.” Id. at *3. Petitioner asserts, “[g]iven the
sheer number of cases in which Respondent has made this argument, without success,
the argument has now become specious.” Id. at *4. Petitioner states that, like many
7

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 10
SIRVA claimants, she took a “wait and see” approach, at her PCP’s guidance. Id. at *8.
She experienced immediate pain, which became worse. Id.
Petitioner asserts that all of her medical records relate her pain to the flu vaccine,
and her declarations corroborate the records. Reply at *9. Respondent has not cited
evidence to the contrary. Id. Thus, Petitioner asserts that preponderant evidence
establishes onset within 48 hours. Id. Because Respondent has not challenged any
requirements other than onset, Petitioner requests that I find that she is entitled to
compensation for a Table SIRVA. Id. at *10. Petitioner further requests that Respondent
be instructed that his proffer should be “in line with the prior decision of this Court on pain
and suffering in SIRVA cases.” Id.
D. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
1. Onset
Respondent appears to conflate the timing of the onset of Petitioner’s pain – the
most relevant issue under the SIRVA QAI – with the timing of the onset of her limited
ROM and difficulties with daily activities – which can inform the question of the onset of
her pain, but are themselves required to begin immediately. The QAI do speak of limited
ROM – but do not set forth a strict timing requirement for it, while the onset question in
the Table and QAI speaks to the onset of Petitioner’s pain. And there is sufficient record
evidence on that issue to deem this element satisfied.
Petitioner reported left shoulder pain from her flu vaccination two months after
vaccination, at her January 16, 2020 appointment with Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy appears
to have dismissed her reports of pain and not provided any treatment. When she returned
a month later, he gave her a prescription, but warned that her pain may be permanent.
Thus, it appears that he may not have taken her complaints seriously, or may have had
doubts about how treatable her condition was.
Petitioner’s presentation for treatment, and treatment course, are fairly typical for
a SIRVA case. She first reported shoulder pain from the flu vaccine two months after
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 15. Over the course of her treatment, she repeatedly and consistently
related her pain to her November 2019 flu vaccine. She reported that her pain “started
when she got a flu shot back in November,” pain and stiffness since her November 2019
flu shot, “pain in upper left arm from flu shot Nov. 19, 2019,” “onset of symptoms in her
left shoulder started on 11/19/19 after she got her flu shot.” Exs. 2 at 7; 3 at 75, 82, 84.
The single notation suggesting a later onset appears within a record that also relates
8

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 10
onset to her November 2019 flu shot, and Respondent does not rely on that record in any
event.
Respondent’s objections ultimately seem to demand an absolute consistency
within a petitioner’s medical records that the Act does not require. Instead, the standard
set forth in the Act is preponderance of the evidence. Section 13(a)(1). Inconsistency
among medical records is thus relevant to the weighing of evidence to determine what
the preponderance of the evidence supports – but inconsistency alone does not defeat a
claim unless it preponderantly supports an alternative finding. Here, a preponderance of
the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of
her flu vaccination.
2. Other SIRVA QAI Criteria
Respondent does not contest the remaining SIRVA QAI criteria, and I find that the
record contains preponderant evidence that they are satisfied. Petitioner did not have a
history of left arm pain or injury prior to her November 19, 2019 flu vaccination that would
explain her symptoms after vaccination. Ex. 2 at 24-149; Opp. at *2. Her pain and reduced
ROM were limited to her left shoulder, where the flu vaccine was administered, and no
other condition or abnormality has been identified that would explain her post-vaccination
symptoms. Ex. 2 at 7-23; Ex. 3 at 73-75; 80-86.
E. 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
4. She experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Ex. 3
at 44. She averred that she has not previously collected an award or settlement of a civil
action for damages, and there are no civil actions pending. Ex. 8 at ¶ 12.
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 immediately upon vaccination. I find
that all other SIRVA Table requirements are met, as are other requirements for
entitlement. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record that she is entitled to
compensation is GRANTED. Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/17/23 Page 10 of 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00376-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-27
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/20/2023) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0376V
BONNIE GRACZYK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 20, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Bonnie Graczyk 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 in her left arm
on November 19, 2019. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
administered in the United States, her vaccine related injuries have lasted more than six
months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever brought an action or received
compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related
injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 6, 17, 20-21. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
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-00376-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 5
On June 16, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On September 20, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $37,500.00. 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.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $37,500.00 (all of which is for 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-00376-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
__________________________________________
)
BONNIE GRACZYK, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-376V (ECF)
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Bonnie Graczyk (“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 she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of
an influenza vaccine that she received on November 19, 2019. ECF No. 1 at 1. On March 9,
2022, petitioner filed a motion for finding of fact, in which she argued that she had established a
claim for compensation for SIRVA under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 24. On March 22, 2022,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a response to petitioner’s
motion for finding of fact, in which he argued that petitioner had failed to establish a claim for
compensation for SIRVA under the Vaccine Act, and that this case should be dismissed. ECF
No. 26. On March 29, 2022, petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s response to the motion for
finding of fact. ECF No. 27. On June 16, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued his Ruling on
Entitlement, in which he found that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF No. 30.

Case 1:21-vv-00376-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 4 of 5
I. Item of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $37,500.00 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 $37,500.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Bonnie Graczyk: $37,500.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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-00376-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 5 of 5
TRACI R. PATTON
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: September 20, 2023
3