VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00400
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00400
Petitioner: Elizabeth Covey
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-05-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 84317

AI-assisted case summary:
Elizabeth Covey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 13, 2019. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The court issued findings of fact on January 2, 2024, establishing the vaccination date and site. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on January 26, 2024, agreeing that Ms. Covey had satisfied the legal prerequisites for compensation, specifically that her injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent noted no prior history of shoulder issues, pain within 48 hours of vaccination, pain limited to the shoulder, and no other identified cause. On February 2, 2024, the court issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Ms. Covey entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 27, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, proposing an award of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,317.38 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $84,317.38. Ms. Covey agreed with this proposed award. On May 3, 2024, the court issued a decision awarding Ms. Covey a lump sum payment of $84,317.38.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00400-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-05
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/02/2024) regarding 31 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order, 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-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-400V
ELIZABETH COVEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 2, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 8, 2021, Elizabeth Covey 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 a Table injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in
November 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
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-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner’s November 13, 2019
vaccination was more likely than not administered in her right shoulder.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the case’s initiation and SPU assignment, Respondent filed a Status Report
stating that he had reviewed Petitioner’s medical records and determined this case was
not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 27. On August 23, 2022, Respondent filed a
Motion for a Fact Ruling requesting that I resolve whether Petitioner’s November 13, 2019
vaccination was administered in her left or right deltoid. In so doing, Respondent observed
that “Petitioner’s vaccine record states she received her November 13, 2019 flu vaccine
in the left arm, but her medical records thereafter consistently state she received her
vaccination in her right arm. Given the conflicting evidence, [R]espondent defers to the
court on this factual issue.” Id. at 3. Respondent proposes filing his Rule 4 Report within
30 days following the issuance of a fact ruling. Id.
On September 6, 2022, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s Motion
arguing that the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was administered
in her right arm as alleged. ECF No. 29.
This matter is ripe for my resolution.
II. Authority
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
2

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 3 of 6
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). 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 & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has 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
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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 & Hum. 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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 4 of 6
III. Finding of Fact
I make these findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, and the parties’ briefs. Specifically, I base the findings on the following
evidence:
• Petitioner received a flu vaccine on November 13, 2019, at a Rite Aid
pharmacy. Ex. 3. On one page of Petitioner’s vaccination record it appears
that “LA,” or left arm, is circled as the “Site” of administration. However, the
circle is not precisely centered, as evident from the reproduction below:
Ex. 3 at 3.
Additionally, a separate page of Petitioner’s vaccination record from Rite
Aid contains a digital form providing the “Service Details” of Petitioner’s
November 13, 2019 vaccination. That page provides that the “Site of
[Vaccine] Admin[istration]” as “Unknown.” Id. at 11.
• Petitioner was seen by James Pearce Dupuis, D.O., at her primary care
provider (“Bronson”), on November 25, 2019 (12 days post-vaccination), for
“concerns about ongoing right shoulder pain.” Ex. 4 at 26. Petitioner
reported that her “[u]pper arm got sore after flu vaccine and hasn’t let up
since then – about two weeks ago.” Id. Petitioner was assessed with “Pain
in right upper arm,” “Acute pain of right shoulder,” and “Adverse effect of
vaccine, initial encounter.” Id. at 27. Dr. Dupuis noted that “etiology [is]
unclear, but seems to be reactive to vaccine.” Id. at 28. Petitioner was
administered a steroid injection for her symptoms. Id.
• Petitioner was next seen by a nurse practitioner at Bronson on December
2, 2019, for “follow up on her arm pain that started after a flu vaccine.” Ex.
19 at 5. Petitioner was assessed with pain in the right upper arm, given a
4

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 5 of 6
prescription for an oral steroid, and advised to follow-up with Dr. Dupuis in
one week. Id. at 6.
• Petitioner visited Dr. Dupuis again on December 9, 2019, for a “recheck of
the right shoulder pain and arm pain that she was having after a vaccine.”
Ex. 4 at 28. Petitioner reported that she was doing better following receipt
of the oral steroid. Id. at 28-29.
• Petitioner was next seen by Dr. Dupuis on January 9, 2020, for a follow-up
visit “with ongoing right shoulder pain.” Ex. 4 at 30. It was noted that “[t]his
stems from [a] reaction to [a] flu vaccine administered for her at rite aid in
November. P[atien]t has done reading and convinced that the vaccine was
admin[istere]d too deep and too high in her deltoid. I have reviewed some
case studies of adhesive capsulitis that stemmed from vaccines and this
seems to confirm that this is the possible issue here.” Id. Petitioner elected
to pursue physical therapy after discussion with Dr. Dupuis.
• Thereafter Petitioner continued to treat for her right shoulder pain through
at least May 2021. Ex. 16 at 6.
The above medical entries, on balance, demonstrate that Petitioner’s November 13, 2019
flu vaccine was more likely than not administered in her right shoulder, consistent with
Petitioner’s sworn declarations – and despite what initial vaccine administration records
seem to show. Ex. 1, Ex. 13.
Respondent correctly observes that the evidence in this case is conflicting. ECF
No. 28 at 3. First, it appears the pharmacist intended to circle “LA” on Petitioner’s vaccine
administration records – indicating that the situs of Petitioner’s vaccination was her left
shoulder. Ex. 3 at 3. This record warrants some weight – especially given that the
recording of situs here required a specific action (circling) on the vaccine administration
record.3 However, as seen above, the pharmacist did not clearly circle either “LA” or “RA.”
Ex. 3 at 3. Additionally, another page of Petitioner’s vaccine administration records states
that the “Site of [Vaccine] Admin[istration]” is “Unknown,” contradicting the initial record.
Id. at 11.
Second, the contemporaneous medical records in which Petitioner’s shoulder pain
was discussed consistently and repeatedly report right shoulder pain associated with the
vaccination – necessarily implying that she received her vaccination in her right shoulder.
3 Vaccine administration records with an electronic recording of situs are more easily prone to error. See
Rodgers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 11, 2020).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/05/24 Page 6 of 6
Ex. 4 at 26 -28, 30; Ex. 19 at 5-6. As discussed in other decisions, consistent reporting to
treating physicians that a shoulder injury was associated with a vaccination received in
the same shoulder can serve as probative evidence sufficient to overcome a contradictory
vaccination record – even when that record precedes the treatment evidence. See e.g.,
Mogavero v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1197V, 2020 WL 4198762, at *3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 12, 2020); Hanna v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-
1455V, 2021 WL 3486248, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2021); Mezzacapo v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021).
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the vaccination
alleged as causal in this case was administered to Petitioner in the right deltoid on
November 13, 2019.
IV. Scheduling Order
Based upon my preliminary review of the complete record in this case, and the
instant Fact Ruling, Petitioner has established a SIRVA Table case. Accordingly, I
encourage the parties to immediately commence informal discussions to resolve this
case. Petitioner should proceed at this time with providing Respondent a reasonable
demand. The following is ORDERED:
• Respondent shall file his Rule 4(c) Report by no later than Thursday,
February 1, 2024.
• Petitioner shall file a status report updating me on the parties’ informal
discussions to resolve this case, by no later than Thursday, February 1,
2024. That status report shall state the date by which Petitioner provided,
or intends to provide, a demand to Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner
shall confirm whether any Medicaid lien exists, and if so, state the date by
which Petitioner anticipates providing Respondent a letter from the
appropriate state agency verifying the amount of the lien.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00400-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/02/2024) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-400V
ELIZABETH COVEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 2, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Elizabeth Covey 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 a Table injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
November 13, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered
within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than
six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her
behalf as a result of her injury. See Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 11, 14-15. 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.

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 2
On January 2, 2024, I issued a Findings of Facts concluding that “there is
preponderant evidence to establish the vaccination alleged as causal in this case was
administered to Petitioner in the right deltoid on November 13, 2019.” ECF No. 31 at 6.
Thereafter on January 26, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states
that while preserving his right to appeal my factual findings, he agrees “that [P]etitioner
has otherwise satisfied the legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.”
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1-2 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D), 300aa-
13(a)(1)). Specifically, Respondent states that he
has concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as
defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history
of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder prior to
vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an
intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the
vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been
identified to explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain.
Id. at 6 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner
has suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months, and otherwise satisfied
all legal requirements for compensation under the Act. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)).
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00400-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-03
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/28/2024) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 51 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-400V
ELIZABETH COVEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 28, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Elizabeth Covey 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 a Table injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
November 13, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 2, 2024, I issued a Findings of Facts concluding that “there is
preponderant evidence to establish the vaccination alleged as causal in this case was
administered to Petitioner in the right deltoid on November 13, 2019.” ECF No. 31 at 6.
On February 2, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to
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-00400-UNJ Document 51 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 5
compensation for SIRVA. On March 27, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00 in pain and
suffering and past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $4,317.38. 3 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 $84,317.38 (consisting of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$4,317.38 for 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Respondent states in his Proffer that he “has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of
damages set forth” therein. Proffer at 2, n.1. Further, assuming I issue a damages decision consistent
with his Proffer, Respondent waives his right to seek review of that Decision. Respondent, however,
reserves his right to seek review of my February 2, 2024 Ruling on Entitlement.
4 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-00400-UNJ Document 51 Filed 05/03/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ELIZABETH COVEY,
Petitioner, No. 21-400V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Elizabeth Covey (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
vaccine on November 13, 2019. Petition at 1.
On August 23, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
Motion for a Fact Ruling (“Motion”) requesting a determination on the site of vaccine
administration based on conflicting notations in the record. ECF No. 28. Petitioner filed a
response on September 6, 2022. ECF No. 29. On January 2, 2024, Chief Special Master
Corcoran issued Findings of Fact and resolved the site of vaccination issue. ECF No. 31. On
January 26, 2024, respondent filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief
Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact, and the medical evidence submitted in this case,
respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Vaccine Act. Rule 4(c) Report at 1 (ECF No. 32). On February 2, 2024, Chief Special

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 51 Filed 05/03/24 Page 4 of 5
Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine
compensation for her SIRVA.1 See Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 35).
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$80,000.00 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 $4,317.38. 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
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 February 2, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00400-UNJ Document 51 Filed 05/03/24 Page 5 of 5
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $84,317.38, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Elizabeth Covey: $84,317.38
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
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ NINA Y. REN
NINA Y. REN
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) 305-3781
Nina.Ren@usdoj.gov
DATED: March 27, 2024
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.