VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00408
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00408
Petitioner: Charles Olson
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-04-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-24
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 131976

AI-assisted case summary:
Charles Olson, an adult, received an influenza vaccine in his left shoulder on September 24, 2019. Within hours, he began experiencing pain and discomfort, which he reported to medical providers starting on October 17, 2019, approximately three weeks later. He was diagnosed with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Mr. Olson's medical records documented persistent left shoulder pain, reduced range of motion, and tenderness, which ultimately led to arthroscopic surgery on March 2, 2021. He also underwent physical therapy and received steroid injections. The respondent initially questioned the onset of the injury and suggested a fall in November 2019 as an alternative cause. However, the court found that Mr. Olson's reported pain began shortly after the vaccination and prior to the fall, satisfying the Table criteria for SIRVA. Entitlement was granted on January 27, 2023. After failing to reach an agreement on damages, the court awarded Mr. Olson $128,000.00 for pain and suffering, plus $180.47 for a Medicaid lien to Rawlings Company and $3,615.96 for a Medicaid lien to Optum, totaling $131,976.43.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00408-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-28
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/27/2023) regarding 36 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-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 10
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-408V
UNPUBLISHED
CHARLES OLSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 27, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA);
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On January 8, 2021, Charles Olson f iled a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 24, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters, and the parties have now briefed Petitioner’s entitlement
to damages. For the reasons described below I find in Petitioner’s favor.
1 Because this unpublished fact ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 10
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed this claim on January 8, 2021. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed an
amended petition, medical records, and a statement of completion on April 19, 2021. ECF
Nos. 6, 7, 9-11. On September 21, 2021, Respondent’s counsel filed a status report
stating that he conducted a preliminary review of the case and did not identify any medical
records that appeared to be missing. ECF No. 19. Respondent’s counsel did note that
onset might prove to be an issue, however.
On September 29, 2021, based on Respondent’s counsel’s assessment,
Petitioner’s evidence, and my own review of this case, I determined it would be
appropriate for this case to remain in SPU. ECF No. 20. Further, I ordered Petitioner to
begin preparing a demand. In a scheduling order issued on March 10, 2022, I stated that
if this case remained unreviewed by June 9, 2022, Petitioner would be allowed to file a
motion for a ruling on the record. ECF No. 25. Respondent filed a status report on June
9, 2022, requesting until July 11, 2022, to file a status report indicating how he intended
to proceed in this case. ECF No. 27. I then ordered Petitioner to file a motion for a ruling
on the record by July 15, 2022.
Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record and brief in support of damages
on July 15, 2022. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of
Damages (“Mot.”), ECF No. 30. Petitioner argues therein that he is entitled to
compensation (id. at 14-16) and requests an award of $130,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering. Id. at 16-29.
Respondent filed a response on July 29, 2022. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 31.
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of a Table claim,
and in particular that there is an alternative source for Petitioner’s left shoulder pain. Opp.
at 8-9. Respondent objected to responding to Petitioner’s damages claim at this juncture,
arguing it is premature. Id. at 1.
Petitioner filed a reply on August 4, 2022, addressing Respondent’s arguments.
Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and
Brief in Support of Damages (“Reply”), ECF No. 32. Petitioner also requested oral
argument. Id. At 2. Petitioner filed a second reply on November 7, 2022, detailing two
Medicaid liens associated with Petitioner’s care. Petitioner’s Second Reply Brief in
Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages
(“Surreply”). Petitioner also requested that the Court make a ruling on damages after
entitlement has been decided. Id. At 1-2.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 10
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine on September 24, 2019 in his left shoulder. Ex. 1
at 5, 37.
Approximately three weeks later, on October 17, 2019, Petitioner complained to
Scott Weldon and Franklin Park Urgent Care Center of left arm pain that “started after flu
shot”. Ex. 3 at 5. Petitioner rated his pain as eight out of ten. X-rays were taken, which
were unremarkable. Id. at 7.
Petitioner next complained of shoulder pain to Jordon Snell, D.O., on November
15, 2019, at Chehalis Family Medicine. Ex. 1 at 37. Petitioner reported that he had a flu
shot on September 24, 2019, and “has had persistent arm pain since then.” He also stated
that he “had a fall about 2 weeks ago and caught himself on outstretched left arm.” Id. Dr.
Snell expressed the view that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was “multifactorial, with some
residual pain from injection, and new pain approximately since fall.” Id. at 36.
On December 4, 2019, Petitioner was seen for a physical therapy evaluation. Ex.
4 at 75. The mechanism of injury was described as “following flu injection on 9/24/2019”.
Id. Petitioner also stated that the pain began “a few hours after the [flu] injection, and
continued to persist….” Id. at 90.3 At that time, he rated his pain as 5-7 out of 10. Id. at
77.
Petitioner was next seen for physical therapy on December 11, 2019. Ex. 4 at 73.
Petitioner stated that his pain began a few hours after the [flu] injection, and continued to
persist….” Id. At 73.
Petitioner was seen by Dr. Danielson on December 17, 2019, for chronic low back
pain. Ex. 5 at 11. At that time, Petitioner also inquired about “some recent persisting left
lateral shoulder pain” that began “after a prior [] flu shot.” Id. Petitioner further stated there
was no significant trauma other than his injection. Id.
On December 19, 2019, Petitioner again saw Dr. Snell. Ex. 1 at 73. At that time,
Petitioner reported persistent left arm pain that “perhaps mildly improved after starting
PT.” Id. He reported mostly aching pain at that time.
Petitioner saw Dr. Danielson again on March 17, 2020, for chronic low back pain
and left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 16. Petitioner’s shoulder pain was “felt to be consistent
3 The physical therapist also noted that Petitioner’s primary care physician stated that Petitioner “had a fall
onto his L shoulder, which [Petitioner] did not mention to P[hysical] T[herapist].” Ex. 4 at 90.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 10
with a potential shoulder impingement syndrome.” Id. Dr. Danielson noted that Petitioner
was “[g]uarding” his left shoulder, and that he had tried limited sleeping on his left side.
Id. An examination indicated that Petitioner had reduced range of motion, and his left
shoulder exhibited some tenderness in the subacromial region. Id. at 17-18.
Petitioner was seen for a telehealth visit on March 27, 2020. Ex. 1 at 92. Petitioner
reported his arm pain was persistent, and he was “struggling with sleep.” However, his
baseline pain while awake was improving. Id. Petitioner reported that he was seeing a
physical medicine specialist for his left shoulder pain and his evaluation was “consistent
with shoulder impingement, though the possibility of SIRVA” remained. Id. at 92.
On May 14, 2020, Petitioner returned to physical therapy. Ex. 6 at 9. He described
his injury as left shoulder pain “that began following the flu injection performed on
9/24/2019.” Id. The physical therapist noted that Petitioner was evaluated in December
of 2019 but “never returned to clinic due to traveling out of town.” Id. Over the past several
months, Petitioner reported his shoulder pain has continued without improvement.
Petitioner rated his pain as five out of ten, and that he experienced pain 51-75% of the
time. Id. at 13.
Petitioner attended ten physical therapy sessions between May 14, 2020, and July
27, 2020. Ex. 6 at 55, 200. During that time, his pain levels decreased, with repeated
reports of levels as low as zero out of ten prior to assessment, and three-to-four out of
ten during assessment. Id. at 103 (record from June 5, 2020 rating his pain as 0/10 prior
to assessment); id. at 147 (record from June 19, 2020 rating his pain as 0/10 prior to
assessment and 3/10 during assessment); id. at 200 (record from July 18, 2020 rating his
pain as 1/10 prior to assessment and 4/10 during assessment). However, he continued
to demonstrate weakness and reported ongoing shoulder pain as late as July 27, 2020.
Id. at 237.
Petitioner had a left shoulder MRI on August 19, 2020. Ex. 9 at 67-68. The MRI
showed tendinosis with partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, mild arthritis,
and bursitis. Id.
On October 12, 2020, Petitioner saw PA Lukas Steffan for left shoulder pain.
Petitioner stated that his pain started the day after he got a flu shot a year earlier. Ex. 9
at 79. He was assessed with arthritis of the left acromioclavicular joint, bursitis, and a
partial left rotator cuff tear. Id. at 69. At that time, he received a steroid injection. Id.
Petitioner had a second steroid injection on November 4, 2020. Id. at 72.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 5 of 10
Petitioner next complained of shoulder pain on January 29, 2021. Ex. 9 at 83.
Petitioner reported that he had experienced about three weeks of relief from the steroid
injection, but the pain had since returned. Id. Petitioner also reported that he was
improving, and described the severity of his problem as mild to moderate. Id.
On February 9, 2021, Petitioner met with Dr. Christopher Hawkins to discuss his
shoulder pain. At that time, Petitioner complained of difficulty sleeping due to pain, and
occasional pain with reaching and/or lifting away from his body. Ex. 9 at 90. Petitioner
indicated he wanted to proceed with surgical treatment. Id.
Petitioner underwent left shoulder arthroscopic surgery on March 2, 2021. The
procedures included extensive debridement, a subacromial bursectomy and
decompression with resection of the coracoacromial ligament. Ex. 9 at 106-07.
Petitioner subsequently attended twelve physical therapy sessions between March
3, 2021 and April 23, 2021. At the time of his discharge, he rated his pain as 1 out of 10,
but continued to exhibit some weakness. Ex. 11 at 15-16. He was assessed with
“essentially…normal range of motion and good strength except external rotation” which
was “still somewhat weak.” Id. at 16.
III. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of his claim on April 5, 2021. Ex. 2.
Petitioner states that a few hours after his flu vaccine on September 24, 2019, he began
to experience pain and discomfort in his shoulder. Id. at 2. Additionally, Petitioner
described his course of treatment and how his injury impacted his daily life.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner requests that I issue a ruling finding that he is entitled to compensation
in this case. Mot. at 14-16. He avers that onset of his shoulder pain was within 48 hours
of the vaccination, and he experienced decreased range of motion thereafter,
substantiating his SIRVA Table claim. Id. at 16. Respondent argues that Petitioner has
failed to show he suffered a Table claim because his treating physician identified an
alternative source of his left shoulder pain -- specifically a fall in early November of 2019.
Opp. at 9.
V. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
5

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 6 of 10
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a
petitioner must establish that he 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).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). 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).
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.
4 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).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 7 of 10
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, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
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 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).
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
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 204 (2013) (citing § 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).
A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner Had no Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury
7

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 8 of 10
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner
meets this criterion, and I find that he has demonstrated a lack of history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder that would explain his symptoms. See Ex.
3 at 5 (stating that Petitioner’s pain “started after flu shot”).
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
his Vaccination
Respondent has not contested that onset of Petitioner’s pain was within 48 hours
of his vaccination. Further, the aforementioned medical records support the conclusion
that Petitioner consistently reported to treaters onset close-in-time to vaccination, and that
he sought treatment within approximately three weeks of his September 2019
vaccination, at which time he maintained he had experienced pain since the vaccination.
Ex. 3 at 5 (stating in an October 17, 2019 record that Petitioner’s pain “started after flu
shot”); Ex. 1 at 37 (stating in a November 15, 2019 record that Petitioner “has had
persistent arm pain since a flu shot”).
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to his Left Shoulder
I also find that there is a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner’s pain was
limited to his left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim,
and the records consistently report shoulder pain, weakness, and loss of range of motion
in his left shoulder, which is consistent with other SIRVA cases. Petitioner’s medical
procedures were also limited to his left shoulder. Accordingly, preponderant evidence
establishes that Petitioner’s pain was limited to his left shoulder.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent argues that Petitioner Petitioner’s treating physician
identified a fall in early November 2019 as a contributing factor. Opp. at 9. Respondent
notes that Dr. Snell indicated Petitioner has had pain since that fall, and attributed his
shoulder pain to a combination of the injection and the fall. Ex. 1 at 36-37.
Evidence of this post-vaccination accident is preponderantly established by the
record. Ex. 1 at 37. However, Petitioner correctly notes that he first complained of
shoulder pain prior to the accident, on October 17, 2019, and also attributed his shoulder
8

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 9 of 10
pain to the September flu vaccination. Ex. 3 at 5. Indeed, he consistently reported pain
beginning close in time to vaccination but prior to the accident. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 75
(stating Petitioner’s pain began following a flu injection on September 24, 2019); Ex. 9 at
79 (stating Petitioner’s pain started the day after he got a flu shot).
While it is true that Dr. Snell indicated Petitioner’s shoulder pain may be
“multifactorial” and may have contributed to his pain or injury, it does not preclude
Petitioner from suffering a SIRVA or defeat his claim. The multifactorial aspect is more
likely relevant to the ultimate value of this claim, but it does not defeat it (unless it could
be shown to be the more likely cause of Petitioner’s injury – which the record does not
establish).
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in his left
shoulder on September 24, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 5 at 37; see Section
11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring
administration within the United States or its territories). There is no evidence that
Petitioner has collected a civil award for his injury. Ex. 2 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of
prior civil award).
As stated above, I have found that the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was
within 48 hours of vaccination. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this
requirement). I have also found that there is no other condition that which would explain
Petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48
hours for a Table SIRVA following receipt of the influenza vaccine). Therefore, Petitioner
has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA.
The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of his
SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer
the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or required
surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). The
records demonstrate, and Respondent does not contest, that Petitioner suffered the
residual effects of his shoulder injury for more than six months and underwent surgical
intervention. Ex. 9 at 106-07 (records of Petitioner’s arthroscopic surgery). Thus, this
requirement is also met.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/28/23 Page 10 of 10
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, he has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
VI. Damages
Petitioner also briefed damages, and requests $130,000.00 for pain and suffering.
Mot. At 1, 16-29; Reply at 9; Surreply at 1-2. Respondent did not brief damages, stating
that it is premature and that the non-PDF order specified entitlement be addressed. Opp.
At 1.
Respondent has unilaterally opted to ignore my order about briefing damages – a
questionable stance that in future cases may well result in a decision on damages
awarding all, or most, of what a claimant requests, based solely on my own determination
of what is reasonable and without any consideration of Respondent’s input. However, I
decline to decide damages at this time, and instead direct the parties to discuss whether
damages can be decided informally. If they cannot come to an agreement within 30 days,
Respondent will be ordered to submit damages briefing addressing Petitioner’s
arguments – and to do so in a relatively short timeframe.
VII. Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by Friday, February
24, 2023, indicating whether settlement discussions are productive. If not,
Respondent shall file, by no later than March 10, 2023, a brief addressing damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00408-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-09
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/04/2024) regarding 43 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-408V
UNPUBLISHED
CHARLES OLSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 4, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Damages;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Charles Olson 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 alleged that he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”),
and entitlement was found in the Petitioner’s favor on January 27, 2023. The parties
reached on impasse on the appropriate award for pain and suffering, however, requiring
its resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding.
1 Because this unpublished fact ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons described below, I award $128,000.00 in damages, representing
compensation for actual pain and suffering, plus $3,796.43 for reimbursement of two
Medicaid liens.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Following the filing of the Petition, Respondent filed a status report stating that he
was interested in discussing a litigative risk settlement. ECF No. 29. Petitioner filed a
Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages (“Pet. Mot.”) on July
15, 2022. ECF No. 30. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and response on July 29,
2022. (“Report”), ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed a reply on August 4, 2022, addressing
Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling
on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages (“Reply”), ECF No. 32. A second reply
was filed on November 7, 2022, stating that a Medicaid lien exists, which has been
subcontracted to two parties: $265.65 to Rawlings Company, and $3,799.79 to Optum.
Petitioner’s Second Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record
and Brief in Support of Damages (“Second Reply”), ECF No. 35.
A ruling on entitlement was issued on January 27, 2023, and the parties were
instructed to discuss damages. ECF No. 36. However, the parties were unable to agree,
and Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s damages arguments on March 10, 2023.
Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Res. Opp.”), ECF
No. 39. Petitioner filed a third reply on April 27, 2023. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support
of Damages (“Third Reply”), ECF No. 40. The matter was submitted for an SPU “Motions
Day” hearing on February 26, 2024.
II. Medical Records
Mr. Olson received a flu shot on September 24, 2019, in his left shoulder. Ex. 1 at
5, 37. He first complained of left shoulder pain on October 17, 2019, rating it as eight out
of ten. Ex. 3 at 5, 7. He periodically complained of shoulder pain seven different times
between October 2019 and March of 2020. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 77 (record from December
4, 2019 rating his pain as five-to-seven out of ten); Ex. 1 at 92 (record from March 27,
2020 complaining of constant shoulder pain that was impacting his sleep).
On May 14, 2020, Petitioner reported pain as five out of ten, and that he
experienced it 51-75% of the time. Ex. 6 at 13. Petitioner then attended ten physical
therapy sessions between May 14 and July 27, 2020. Id. at 103, 147, 200, 237. His
symptoms saw some improvement, and his pain levels were reported as one-to-four out
of ten.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 3 of 7
An MRI on August 19, 2020 revealed tendinosis, bursitis, and a partial tear of the
supraspinatus tendon. Ex. 9 at 67-68. On October 12 and November 4, 2020, Petitioner
received two steroid injections. Ex. 9 at 72, 79. He felt some relief, but his pain returned
and ultimately, he underwent arthroscopic surgery on May 2, 2021. Id. at 106-07.
Following surgery, Petitioner attended twelve physical therapy sessions. Ex. 11 at 16. By
April 23, 2021, when he was discharged from physical therapy, he rated his pain as one
out of ten, and described his shoulder function as excellent.
III. Damages
Petitioner is seeking $130,000.00 for pain and suffering for his SIRVA. Pet. Mot.
at 29. He also seeks an amount sufficient to reimburse two Medicaid liens. Second Reply.
Respondent argues that that the lesser sum of $90,000.00 is more appropriate. Res. Opp.
at 9-10. Additionally, he asserts that the Medicaid lien reimbursements should be reduced
for specific treatments unrelated to Petitioner’s SIRVA. Specifically, Petitioner should be
awarded $180.47 to satisfy the Rawlings Company and $3,615.96 to satisfy Optum. Id.
at 12-13. Petitioner’s Third Reply accepts that the Medicaid lien amounts should be
reduced for the specific amounts noted by Respondent. Third Reply at 12-13.
IV. Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment awarding such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
3

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 4 of 7
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (citing McAllister v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26,
1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.3 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum (between zero and the $250,000.00 cap), that practice was cast into doubt by
the Court several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579
(Fed. Cl. 2013). The Court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering
awards into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is
compared to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 589-90. Instead,
pain and suffering should be assessed by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and
suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside
of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap
merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all
possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. While Graves does not
control the process used herein to calculate pain and suffering, it stands as wise counsel.
V. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Mr. Olson was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the
awareness of his injury. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and
duration of Petitioner’s injury. When performing this analysis, I review the record as a
whole, including the medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties
3 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases were assigned to former Chief Special
Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were
reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 5 of 7
in written documents, and the arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing.
Petitioner cites to a number of damages decisions involving SIRVA injuries that
awarded between $125,000.00 and $145,000.00 for pain and suffering.4 Pet. Br. at 21-
33. Petitioner notes that Mr. Olson suffered a moderate to severe SIRVA over
approximately eighteen months, and his treatment involved two steroid injections, an MRI,
arthroscopic surgery, and twenty-two physical therapy sessions. Id. at 28-29.
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s injury was moderate to mild, and that his
treatment was fairly conservative until his surgery. Further, by eighteen months post-
vaccination, he was essentially back to baseline. Therefore, an award of $90,000.00 is
appropriate. Res. Opp. at 9-10. In support, Respondent cites to two cases awarding under
$100,000.00: Hunt v. HHS, No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
16, 2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for pain and suffering); Shelton v. HHS, No. 19-279, 2021
WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021), (awarding $97,500.00 for pain and
suffering).
The record in this case best supports the conclusion that Mr. Olson suffered a
moderate SIRVA for approximately 18 months. He sought treatment soon after his
vaccination. Initially his pain was significant, reported as five-to-seven out of ten for
approximately six months and then one-to-four out of ten for an additional five months.
Petitioner’s initial, conservative treatment was unsuccessful, and he ultimately underwent
arthroscopic surgery in May of 2021. He made good progress in his recovery, and by April
23, 2021, Petitioner reported pain levels of one out of ten and excellent function after
twelve physical therapy sessions.
Respondent’s proposed award of $90,000.00 does not give sufficient credence to
the seriousness of Petitioner’s injury, and the cases he cites to are outliers in the context
of SIRVA damages. The Shelton petitioner, for example, waited five months before
seeking treatment - a significant delay that greatly impacted the pain and suffering award.
Shelton, 2021 WL 2550093 at *5, *8. Additionally, Hunt featured periods of little-to-no pain
reported, including one fifteen-month gap. Hunt, 2022 WL 2826662 at *9 n.7. Thus, these
comparables are far less persuasive than what Petitioner has offered.
4 Stromer v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 19-1969V, 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 937, *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 8,
2022) (awarding $145,000 for pain and suffering); Drake v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 18-1747V, 2020 U.S. Claims
LEXIS 1450, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 7, 2020) (awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering); Blanco v.
Sec'y of HHS, No. 18-1361V, 2020 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1408, *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 6, 2020) (awarding
$135,000 for pain and suffering); Stokes v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 19-752V, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 3061, *5
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 17, 2021) (awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 6 of 7
Balancing the severity of his SIRVA injury, the course of treatment, and based on
the record as a whole, I find that $128,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and
suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
VI. Appropriate Reimbursement for Medicaid Liens
Petitioner initially sought $265.65 as reimbursement to Rawlings Company for a
lien and $3,799.79 as reimbursement to Optum. Second Reply. Respondent noted that
the reimbursements should be reduced for five treatments that were unrelated to
Petitioner’s SIRVA, resulting in reimbursements of $180.47 to the Rawlings Company,
and $3,615.96 to satisfy Optum. In his third reply, Petitioner agreed with that the five
treatments should be excluded. Third Reply at 12-13.5
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I award Petitioner
• $128,000.00 for pain and suffering in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner;
• A lump sum payment of $180.47, representing compensation for
satisfaction of a Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly
to Petitioner6 and:
The Rawlings Company
Attn: Mike McQuire
P.O. Box 2000
La Grange, KY 40032
• A lump sum payment of $3,615.96, representing compensation for
satisfaction of a Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly
to Petitioner7 and:
Optum
L-3994
Columbus, OH 43260-3994
5 Petitioner’s Third Reply altered the amount sought for the liens, seeking $180.47 for The Rawlings
Company and $3,807.22 for Optum. Third Reply at 12-13. The amount requested for Optum appears to
be a math error.
6 Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to The Rawlings Company for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien.
7 Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Optum for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00408-UNJ Document 51 Filed 04/09/24 Page 7 of 7
These amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be
available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
7