VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00398
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00398
Petitioner: Donna Horn
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-03-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-12-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 55000

AI-assisted case summary:
Donna Horn filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on December 2, 2019. The respondent argued that Ms. Horn failed to demonstrate that her injury lasted more than six months, that the vaccine was administered in her left shoulder, or that she experienced shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination. The court found that the COVID-19 pandemic provided a reasonable explanation for any gap in treatment, that the medical records consistently indicated the vaccine was administered in her left shoulder and that she reported pain since the injection, and that her initial report of pain seventeen days post-vaccination was sufficient to meet the Table onset requirement. The court determined that Ms. Horn was entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. The court awarded Ms. Horn $55,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering, representing 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-00398-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-01
Pages: 6
Docket text: ECISION of Special Master, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/30/2024) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION of Special Master, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/30/2024) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement, D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0398V
DONNA HORN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: January 30, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Donna Horn 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
December 2, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
Because the parties could not informally resolve the claim, they were ordered to
file briefs setting forth their respective arguments, and were notified that I would resolve
1 Because this Ruling/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 Ruling/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-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 6
this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on
January 29, 2024.
As discussed below, I find Petitioner entitled to compensation, and award her
$55,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering.
I. 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 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). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See 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)).
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 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 she 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).
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she 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; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 3 of 6
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 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).
II. Ruling on Entitlement and Damages
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on both
entitlement and damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant
to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the January 29, 2024 hearing. An official
recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not
3

Case 1:21-vv-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 4 of 6
yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially
recorded.
A. Entitlement
a. Ruling
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the residual
complications of her left-sided SIRVA lasted for more than six months after vaccination;
that she failed to provide any objective evidence that the flu vaccine was administered in
her left shoulder; and that there is not preponderant evidence to show that Petitioner
experienced shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Respondent’s
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”) at 7-8. (ECF No. 35).
Respondent’s severity contentions arise from the fact that Petitioner received care
for only the first three months after vaccination, but then not again for approximately ten
months (January 20, 2021) – a gap which spanned the six-month severity requirement.
Opp. at 7; Ex. 4 at 49. And when Petitioner did return for care, she complained of left
shoulder pain for “several weeks,” and did not attribute that pain back to her vaccination,
nor to the left shoulder pain that she had previously treated. Id.
However, there are several reasonable explanations for the gap in treatment. The
COVID-19 Pandemic, for example, started right around the time Petitioner last was seen
for treatment of her shoulder in March 2020 - thereby explaining why she might have
ceased treatment at that time, since many medical facilities were then closed or limited
to only treating patients with life-threatening emergencies. In addition, the record
establishes that by the time Petitioner was seen in January 2021, she had been self-
treating, with 1300 mg daily of acetaminophen, and had been using lidocaine patches.
Opp. at 4; Ex. 4 at 50. These factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding that Petitioner
continued to experience left shoulder pain during this time despite her lack of formal
treatment.
Next, Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to provide any objective
evidence that her vaccination was administered in her left shoulder, since the December
2, 2019 vaccination record does not identify the site of vaccine administration. Opp. at 7;
Ex. 1 at 909. Again, the existing record favors Petitioner’s side of this fact dispute.
Petitioner’s treatment records indicate that she consistently reported that she received
the flu vaccine to her left shoulder. All of the treatment to Petitioner’s shoulder was
administered to her left shoulder. And not a single record indicates otherwise, including
the vaccination record itself. See e.g., Ex. 1 at 948 ( Petitioner “received a flu shot on
December 2 and states [ever] since she received the injection her Left arm has been
4

Case 1:21-vv-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 5 of 6
really sore.”); Ex. 1 at 955 (x-ray conducted to left shoulder); Ex. 5 at 16 (Petitioner
“presents here with a complaint of left shoulder pain, which started a little over a year ago
after she got a flu shot in her left arm. She then developed a vaccine injury with her
shoulder.”); Ex. 5 at 7, 17 (Petitioner was given a left shoulder injection and underwent
two cupping treatments). The fact that the vaccination record does not affirmatively
identify the arm of vaccine administration does not, in and of itself, lead to the conclusion
that Petitioner’s SIRVA claim fails. Thus, I find that Petitioner has satisfied her burden.
Finally, Respondent argues that “Petitioner did not report her alleged left shoulder
pain until seventeen days post-flu vaccination on December 19, 2019,” and thus she fails
to meet the onset requirement. Opp. at 8. Respondent notes that when Petitioner did
report shoulder pain, she did not specifically indicate that the pain began within 48 hours
of vaccine administration, as required for a presumption of vaccine causation. Id. But
Respondent’s objection is not persuasive in this instance. When Petitioner first reported
shoulder pain to her PCP on December 19, 2019, just seventeen days post-flu
vaccination, she reported that her left arm had been sore “since” she received the flu
vaccine. Ex. 1 at 948 (emphasis added). And there is no contrary evidence in the record
stating otherwise. Such an initial, post-vaccination treatment record so close in time to
the date of vaccination, and which allows for a reading consistent with the Table onset
requirement, is sufficient to meet this claim element.
b. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or established
causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional
requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual effects of injury
lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are
established or undisputed. Petitioner has therefore established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA, satisfying all other requirements for compensation.
B. Damages
As discussed above, I issued an oral ruling on damages constituting my findings
of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the
January 29, 2024 hearing. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially
recorded. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Friberg v. Sec’y
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6,
2022) to the instant Ruling and Decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral
ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts
5

Case 1:21-vv-00398-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/01/24 Page 6 of 6
relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision
awarding damages herein.
Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $55,000.00,
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.4 This is the only element of damages sought in this case.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,000.00, 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
5 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.
6