VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00421
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00421
Petitioner: Helen Clark
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2024-12-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-17
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Helen Clark 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 administered on September 17, 2019. Although the vaccine record indicated administration in the right arm, medical records and Ms. Clark's statements indicated that an attempt was made to administer the vaccine in her left arm, which resulted in pain and leakage. She reported left shoulder pain within hours of the vaccination, and this pain persisted, leading to diagnoses of impingement syndrome, adhesive capsulitis, and tendinitis. The court found that Ms. Clark met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including no prior condition explaining the symptoms, onset within 48 hours, pain limited to the left shoulder, and no other condition explaining the symptoms. The respondent initially opposed compensation but later agreed to a settlement. On December 2, 2024, the court awarded Ms. Clark $70,000.00 for pain and suffering, representing compensation for her Table SIRVA injury.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00421-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-24
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/21/2024) regarding 49 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-421V
UNPUBLISHED
HELEN CLARK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 21, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
HUMAN SERVICES, Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA); Six Month
Respondent. Severity Requirement
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Helen Clark filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). The Petition alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 17, 2019. Petition at 1.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed this matter on January 8, 2021, amending the claim six months
later. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation on November 14,
1 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-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 8
2022. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”), ECF No. 42. Respondent argues that
Petitioner cannot meet the Table requirements for a SIRVA claim. Id. at 14-16. On March
8, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record in favor of the claim. Motion for
a Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 36. Respondent filed a response on March 22,
2023. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”),
ECF No. 47. Petitioner file da reply on March 27, 2022. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s
Response to Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 48. The matter is ripe
for resolution.
II. Factual Background
The medical records reveal that prior to her vaccination, Petitioner was a licensed
practical nurse, but was disabled and unemployed during the relevant time periods for
this case. Ex. 7 at 455, Ex. 4 at 28, 102. Her pre-vaccination medical history is significant
for diabetes, congestive heart failure, and dyspnea. Ex. 3 at 3; Ex. 4 at 194, 882, 903.
She also had breast cancer in 2017 and 2018 that resulted in left breast lumpectomy and
left axilla sentinel node biopsy. Ex. 4 at 716, Ex. 7 at 531, Ex. 8 at 960. During Petitioner’s
inpatient stay for surgery, she experienced a presyncopal episode that resulted in a fall
on January 31, 2018. Ex. 4 at 716. She reported left arm pain “from having been braced
from her fall the night before”.
Twenty-one days prior to vaccination, Petitioner began treating with primary care
physician Dr. Sierra Pena. Ex. 4 at 978. She was admitted to the emergency room for
shortness of breath, COPD exacerbation, hypoxia. Ex. 4 at 993, Ex. 8 at 2373, 2379.
Petitioner saw Dr. Pena for a post-hospital check on September 17, 2019, when
she received the vaccination at issue. Ex. 3 at 2. The record states that the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder. Ex. 3 at 2, Ex. 4 at 1009, Ex. 6 at 1, Ex. 7 at
1333. No reaction was noted at that time. Ex. 4 at 1005.
At 2:35 A.M. on September 18, 2019, Petitioner sent a message to Dr. Pena stating
that she “got the flu shot while at the office…in my upper left arm and it was leaking down
my arm, so a second one had to be administered to my right arm.” Ex. 9 at 1. She also
stated that her “left shoulder is in a lot of pain”. Id.
Petitioner next reported shoulder pain on October 7, 2019, when seen by Dr. Pena
for a health maintenance visit. Ex. 4 at 1006. She reported left arm pain “since [she] got
the flu shot.” Id. However, there is no indication that her pain was discussed, or any
examination occurred. Id. at 1018.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 8
On December 3, 2019, Petitioner reported left shoulder pain, requesting a referral
to a bone doctor. Ex. 9 at 2. In a follow-up message, Petitioner wrote “I received the flu
shot on my left upper arm in September” and “the liquid leaked out from my arm while the
nurse was trying to inject it…. My left arm continued to hurt a lot” and “something is wrong
ever since I had that ‘failed’ flu shot on my left arm.” Id. at 3.
Petitioner had a consultation at a bone and joint center on December 10, 2019.
Ex. 7 at 1166-84. She reported left shoulder problems that started after a flu vaccine and
“frequent episodes of aching pain with attempted use of the left shoulder” that shot down
her arm. Id. at 1177. An examination showed stable passive ranges of motion, and she
was diagnosed with impingement syndrome. Id. at 1181. A cortisone injection was
administered at that time and physical therapy was ordered. Id. at 1184.
Petitioner reported shoulder pain on January 13 and February 6, 2020. Ex. 7 at
1185, 1193; Ex. 14 at 33. Both times she stated that the cortisone injection had helped.
Several months later, Petitioner began physical therapy for her shoulder on May
4, 2020. Ex. 5 at 7, 44, 48. At that time, she had limited range of motion, reduced strength,
poor scapular position, and neural tightness. Id. at 46. She attended nine physical therapy
sessions between May and August of 2020. Id. at 8-50. She was discharged on August
10, 2020, not having met her goals. Id. at 15-16.
Petitioner continued to report shoulder pain on September 18, 2020, stating
physical therapy granted her “no relief”. Ex. 4 at 1047. On January 14, 2021, Petitioner
again reported left shoulder pain and received a subacromial injection. Ex. 7 at 1245,
1254. An MRI of her left shoulder on March 30, 2021, showed mild osteoarthritis,
tendinitis, and mild bursitis. Ex. 12 at 2. Petitioner report ongoing left shoulder pain
throughout 2021. Ex. 11 at 38, Ex. 11 at 64. Further, she had a third corticosteroid
injection on May 10, 2021. Ex. 11 at 64.
On June 29, 2021, Petitioner was seen by an orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 11 at 163-
64. The record notes that she had ongoing problems with her left shoulder that began
after a flu shot in September of 2019, with pain that shot down her arm along with
numbness in some fingers. Id. at 163. She was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis but
was deemed not a surgical candidate.
On September 13, 2021, Petitioner saw another orthopedic surgeon for a second
opinion. Ex. 13 at 6. She was diagnosed with left shoulder and upper extremity syndrome,
left elbow cubital tunnel syndrome, Cushing syndrome, COPD, DHF, and a history of
breast cancer. Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 8
Petitioner has submitted two declarations in support of her Petition. In the first, she
explained that she received a flu vaccine on September 17, 2019. Ex. 10. Further, she
“immediately felt pain as clear fluid leaked all down my arm” and the administrator “was
unable to deliver the rest of the vaccine as there was resistance”. Id. In the second, she
detailed how the first vaccination attempt on failed and she experienced immediate pain.
Ex. 16 at 1. Petitioner also described her course of treatment. Id. at 1-2.
III. Legal Standard
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.
In particular, a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the
Table criteria (i.e. a Table injury), in which case causation is presumed, or an injury
shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. If a petitioner establishes
a Table injury the burden shifts to respondent to establish a more likely alternative
cause. Section 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1)(C)(i), 14(a). If a petitioner cannot establish a Table
injury, or she may pursue causation-in-fact under the legal standard set forth in Althen
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
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;
4

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 5 of 8
(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).
In addition to causation, a petitioner must also meet the requirements
establishing that the vaccine received is “covered” by the Program, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement.3 With regard to
severity, a petitioner must show that she suffered the residual effects or complications
of her injury or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.
§ 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see Song v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65-66
(1994), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that a petitioner must demonstrate
the six-month severity requirement by a preponderance of the evidence).
A. Site of Vaccination
Respondent contends that although Petitioner alleges a left SIRVA, the vaccine
records state she received the flu vaccine in her right arm – with only an abortive attempt
to initially administer the vaccine in her left arm. Opp. at 14. Respondent’s reading of the
administration record is literally correct (see Ex. 4 at 1003 (stating the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right arm)), but his argument does not take into account the
totality of the evidence, which soundly supports a left-side vaccine-related injury.
The overall medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s witness statement, establish
that Petitioner consistently and repeatedly reported to treaters left shoulder pain that was
caused by the attempt to administer a flu vaccine in that shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 9 at 1
(record from September 18, 2019 stating that Petitioner’s left shoulder was in pain
following a failed flu vaccination); Ex. 4 at 1006 (reporting left shoulder pain “since I got
the flu shot”); Ex. 9 at 3 (Petitioner reporting left arm pain “since I had that ‘failed’ flu shot
on my left arm”).
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).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 6 of 8
These records provide sufficient evidence that a vaccination was at least
attempted for Petitioner’s left arm. And these efforts occurred before the vaccine was
successfully administered in Petitioner’s right arm. The subsequent treatment records
gain strength as well given their temporal proximity to the date of vaccination, with
communications describing the events less than twenty-four hours after vaccination.
Otherwise Respondent has not demonstrated that a SIRVA claim has as a
prerequisite proof that the attempted vaccination was completed. Rather, it is sufficient
that the vaccination effort resulted in needle penetration and antigen introduction to be
deemed to have been ”received,” and the record suggests both occurred. (I also note
there is no dispute that the vaccine is one that is covered by the Program, and a vaccine
intended for intramuscular administration as well.)
B. 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 that
Would Explain her Symptoms
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 claims that Petitioner had a history
of problems with her left shoulder, including left axillary surgery related to breast cancer,
osteoarthritis, diabetic neuropathy, and cubital tunnel syndrome. Opp. at 16-17.
Petitioner explained, however, that her prior treatment was unrelated. For
example, the breast cancer treatment involved removal of the lymph nodes from the
armpit area, and Petitioner distinguished her shoulder pain as being “in a completely
different area from where I had the … surgery….” Mot. at 12. Further, there was no reports
of left shoulder pain in the nineteen months prior to vaccination. Id. Moreover, Petitioner
consistently linked her shoulder pain to the failed vaccination in her left shoulder even
within hours of the procedure. Ex. 9 at 1, 3. This provides further evidence that any prior
condition does not explain the symptoms associated with Petitioner’s SIRVA.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 7 of 8
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
Petitioner’s pain occurred within forty-eight hours of vaccination. Ex. 9 at 1.
Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, there is
preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more
likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Respondent claims that Petitioner cannot establish that her pain was limited to her
shoulder because she also reported pain in the left axillary area, and pain that extended
beyond her shoulder into her elbow, forearm, and fingertips. Opp. at 17-18. While
Respondent’s argument has merit, it ultimately fails to rebut Petitioner’s Table showing.
The record contains reports of non-shoulder pain that radiated down Petitioner’s
arm (Ex. 7 at 1177, Ex. 11 at 63), but at the same time consistently identifies pain in her
left shoulder. Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 7 at 1245. Petitioner’s complaints, and the diagnoses, are
consistent with other SIRVA injuries seen in the program, including adhesive capsulitis
and tendinitis. Ex. 12 at 2.
Admittedly, pain reported in Petitioner’s arm and fingers is likely unrelated to
Petitioner’s SIRVA. And Petitioner has a complicated history that includes various
treatments (including surgery) for breast cancer. But such issues can be addressed when
calculating damages. The mere existence of such record complaints does not defeat a
showing that Petitioner not only did experience shoulder-specific pain, but that most of
her complaints and treatment efforts were aimed at that. Accordingly, preponderant
evidence supports this Table element as well.
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 does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim.
Accordingly, preponderant evidence supports this Table element as well.
C. 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
7

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 52 Filed 09/24/24 Page 8 of 8
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements. Petitioner
has therefore established that she suffered a Table SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied
all other requirements for compensation. I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation in this case.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00421-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-02
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/29/2024) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-421V
HELEN CLARK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 29, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Helen Clark 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine she
received on September 13, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 21, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for a Table SIRVA injury. On October 15, 2024, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$70,000.00 for pain and suffering. 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.
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-00421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $70,000.00 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.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-00421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
HELEN CLARK,
Petitioner,
No. 21-421V
v. Chief Special Master Corcoran
(ECF)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Helen Clark (“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
September 13, 2019. Petition at 1. On November 14, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (“respondent”) filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report, denying the case was appropriate for
compensation. ECF No. 42. Subsequent briefing by the parties ensued. ECF No. 46, 47, 48.
On August 21, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement,
finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her SIRVA. See Ruling on
Entitlement (ECF No. 49). The Chief Special Master found that a vaccination was “at least
attempted for Petitioner’s left arm” (ECF No. 49 at 6, emphasis in original), that she had no prior
condition that would explain her symptoms, that the onset of petitioner’s injury occurred within
forty-eight hours of vaccination, that she had shoulder-specific pain at which most of her

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 5
complaints and treatments were aimed, and that there was no other condition or abnormality
which would explain her symptoms (ECF No. 49 at 7).1
I. Items of Compensation
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$70,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This is the only category of
damages to which petitioner would be 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 damages
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:2
A lump sum payment of $70,000.00 for pain and suffering in the form of a check
payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments
A lump sum payment to petitioner, Helen Clark: $70,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s August 21, 2024, entitlement decision.
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, respondent reserves the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Katherine C. Esposito
Katherine C. Esposito
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) 305-3774
katherine.esposito@usdoj.gov
Dated: October 15, 2024
3