VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00427
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00427
Petitioner: Doni Corcoran
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2025-10-15
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-05-18
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 15000

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 8, 2021, Doni Corcoran filed a petition alleging that a Tdap vaccination on May 18, 2019 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent opposed entitlement and moved to dismiss. The dispute centered on whether Ms. Corcoran actually had left-shoulder pain within 48 hours and whether the injury persisted long enough to satisfy the Vaccine Act's severity requirement.

The entitlement decision describes a thin and conflicting record. Ms. Corcoran delayed reporting shoulder symptoms, some records were vague, and respondent argued that her continued tennis activity undermined the claim. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran nevertheless credited her hearing testimony and the surrounding medical record enough to find that the Tdap vaccine was given in the left arm, that pain began within the Table window, and that the residual effects persisted for more than six months. He also found no prior shoulder history or alternative diagnosis that defeated the Table SIRVA claim, though he warned that the sparse and mild record would matter for damages.

Entitlement was granted on September 23, 2025. On October 15, 2025, respondent filed a proffer of damages with Ms. Corcoran's agreement, while reserving the right to seek review of the entitlement ruling. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $15,000.00 for pain and suffering, paid as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine, May 18, 2019, alleged left SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent contested onset and severity, emphasizing delayed reporting, vague records, continued tennis, and lack of documentation, but Chief Special Master Corcoran credited hearing testimony and record context, found the vaccine was in the left arm, onset occurred within 48 hours, severity exceeded six months, and no alternative condition defeated Table SIRVA. Entitlement September 23, 2025. Award October 15, 2025: $15,000 pain and suffering, lump sum. Respondent reserved review rights on entitlement.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00427-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-10
Pages: 10
Docket text: on parties made.PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/23/2025) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement, Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-427V
UNPUBLISHED
DONI CORCORAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Doni Corcoran filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of a Tetanus, Diphtheria, and acellular
Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine received on May 18, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
For the reasons described below, and after holding an expedited hearing on the
disputed issues, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for her SIRVA Table
injury.
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. 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-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 10
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was initiated in January 2021. On May 25, 2023, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report and Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 26. Petitioner was subsequently
ordered to file a combined Response to Respondent’s Rule 4 Report and Motion for ruling
on the record addressing whether Petitioner has established that she met the Act’s
severity requirement pursuant to Section 11(c)(1)(D), and otherwise established a SIRVA
Table claim. Petitioner filed her motion and response on September 6, 2023, Respondent
filed a brief in reaction on October 4, 2023, and Petitioner filed a reply brief on October
11, 2023. ECF Nos. 28-30.
The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an
expedited hearing, which took place on September 5, 2025. ECF No. 31. After
considering the arguments of both sides and questioning the parties in regard to the
disputed issues at the expedited hearing on September 5, 2025, I issued an oral ruling
finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. This Ruling memorializes those
findings/determinations.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
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
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,
2

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 10
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-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 10
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he 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 his injury for more than six months, died from his 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. Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 10
(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).
B. Factual Findings
1. Situs
A preliminary issue in this case is whether Petitioner received her May 18, 2019
vaccination in her left shoulder as alleged. Respondent correctly points out that the
vaccine administration record is inconsistent in regard to this situs issue. The record
states that Petitioner received her vaccination in her (injured) left upper arm in one
location, yet also states Petitioner received her vaccination in her right arm in another
location. Ex. 2 at 5 (pharmacy service details form provides “Site of Admin: Left Upper
Arm”); Ex. 2 at 12 (pharmacy questionnaire and consent form provides “Site RA or LA
Circle One” and “Site RA” is hand circled).
However, at her first medical visit to address her shoulder pain, Petitioner
specifically reported that she received the vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 5 at 8 (December
4, 2019 primary care appointment noting: “[A]bout five months ago, she got the pertussis
vaccine in her left arm. Within the next day, she had pain in that arm and it hasn’t really
gotten any better”) (emphasis added). Thereafter, Petitioner consistently reported the
same situs.
Additionally, Petitioner explains in her supplemental sworn declaration that she
“usually receive[s] vaccinations in [her] left arm,” because she is right-handed. Ex. 13 at
1-2 (citing Ex. 2 at 5, 11-12). This statement is supported by the vaccine administration
records from Petitioner’s December 6, 2016 and November 5, 2019 vaccinations. Ex. 2
at 4, 6, 8, 10.
Accordingly, I find that more likely than not that Petitioner’s May 18, 2019
vaccination was administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder as alleged.
2. Onset
The Table requirement for SIRVA that Respondent contests is whether Petitioner’s
first post-vaccination symptom or manifestation of onset (specifically pain) occurred within
48 hours of her vaccination, as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(II)(C) (pertussis
vaccines); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI); ECF No.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 10
29 at 8-11. Based upon a review of the entire record, and for the reasons set forth below,
I find that it more likely than not was.
Petitioner’s first few medical encounters after her vaccination do not document a
complaint of left shoulder pain. However, these encounters (which included dermatology
visits, phone messages to her primary care provider regarding prescription refills, and a
record documenting only the administration of an influenza vaccination on November 5,
2019 (and not containing any medical history)) are not events wherein it would be
necessarily expected for Petitioner to report, or for the provider to document, shoulder
pain. Ex. 4 at 30-41; Ex. 5 at 11-13; Ex. 2 at 3, 6. Additionally, although Petitioner received
another vaccination on November 5, 2019, and in the same shoulder, I do not find that
this fact defeats her claim, as it is common for individuals to routinely elect to receive
vaccinations in their non-dominant shoulder (which Petitioner states in her supplemental
affidavit is her practice).4 Ex. 13 at 1-2. Petitioner also explains in her supplemental
declaration that she received the flu vaccine in anticipation of a trip to Hawaii to visit her
daughter, who was “about to give birth to my grandchild,” and there is no evidence that
Petitioner’s alleged initial shoulder injury was aggravated by her later vaccination. Ex. 13
at 2.
More significantly, as Respondent points out, Petitioner failed to report to any
medical provider that she suffered shoulder pain for more than six months post
vaccination. Moreover, the first medical record documenting Petitioner’s report of
shoulder pain – a telephone encounter with her primary care office on November 26, 2019
– could be read as documenting a one-month complaint of shoulder pain, and fails to
mention her May 2019 vaccination at all. Ex. 5 at 11 (telephone message from Petitioner
reporting she was “[h]aving r[igh]t hip and l[ef]t shoulder problems. Pain. No injuries.
[G]oing on for a month now, she limps, and movement []when she reaches behind her
back hurts her shoulder.”). Thereafter, when Petitioner was seen by her primary care
provider, and subsequently, a physical therapist and an orthopedist, she associated her
left shoulder pain as occurring after her May 2019 vaccination – but misidentified that
vaccination as occurring in July. Ex. 5 at 8; Ex. 6 at 39; Ex. 8 at 28.
However, and as Petitioner persuasively explained in her brief, ECF No. 28 at 13-
14, and at the expedited hearing in this case, her telephone message to her PCP on
November 26, 2019 was to report both hip and shoulder pain. Her report of a one-month
history of pain was in reference to her hip pain, “going on for a month now, she limps”
while the second half of the same sentence “and movement []when she reaches behind
her back hurts her shoulder” was separately in reference to her shoulder pain. Id. This
construction of the telephone message as not defeating onset is bulwarked by Petitioner’s
4 This is, however, relevant to severity, and will be taken into account in calculating pain and suffering.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 10
subsequent visit to her PCP on December 4, 2019. Ex. 5 at 8. At that time, she reported
that “about 5 months ago, she got the pertussis vaccine in her left arm. Within the next
day, she had pain in that arm and it hasn’t really gotten any better.” Id. (emphasis added).
At the same appointment, Petitioner also reported “[a]bout 6 weeks ago she started to
develop some right neck5 pain. It hurts over the outer aspect of the hip, especially if she
tries to go up stairs. She is able to go down stairs without trouble and is only mildly tender
when she lays on it. It does not give out on her and does not pop or click.” Id. Thus, the
onset of different pains was identified specific to the pain in question – and shoulder pain
onset was linked in at least some of these records to the May 2019 vaccination.
Petitioner further explained in her supplemental declaration and brief that she
incorrectly estimated that she had received a vaccination in July 2019. Ex. 13 at 3-4; ECF
No. 30 at 3.6 However, these same records consistently report that she developed
shoulder pain within one day of her vaccination. Ex. 5 at 8 (December 4, 2019, PCP
appointment: “[A]bout 5 months ago [or July 4, 2019], she got the pertussis vaccine in her
left arm. Within the next day, she had pain in that arm and it hasn’t really gotten any
better.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 6 at 39 (December 9, 2019, Initial PT Evaluation: “Pt.
reports of L[eft] shoulder pain that has been ongoing for 5 months [or since July 9, 2019]
and worsening. Pt. states this occurred after DPT shot.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 8 at 28
(February 26, 2020 Orthopedic Evaluation: “She reports July 2019 after getting a TDAP
vaccine she started experiencing significant pain in her left shoulder.”) (emphasis
added).7
Petitioner has also filed numerous declarations in support of the onset of her
shoulder pain. I find that the declarations, filed by Petitioner (Exs. 1, 13), her husband,
Kevin Corcoran (Ex. 20), her two sisters, Cindy Smerdon (Ex. 17) and Linda Celano (Ex.
19), and her daughter, Lauren Thompson (Ex. 18), provide credible (and consistent)
support for Petitioner’s claim that she suffered the onset of her shoulder pain within 48
hours of her Tdap vaccine in May 2019.
5 The reference to “neck pain” in the context of the medical record, clearly appears to be a typographical
error and should read “hip pain.” Ex. 5 at 8.
6 Petitioner also credibly argued in her brief, and at the hearing, that she likely conflated her May 2019 date
of vaccination to her providers as occurring July 2019, because she received the vaccination in anticipation
of the birth of her grandchild in July 2019. ECF No. 28 at 13.
7 I note that at the September 5, 2025 hearing Respondent also raised the argument that Petitioner’s
continued engagement in tennis was further evidence that she did not suffer the onset of a shoulder injury
within 48 hours of her Tdap vaccination in May 2019. However, as pointed out in Petitioner’s brief, and by
Petitioner at the hearing, Petitioner’s physical therapy evaluation on December 9, 2019, specifically notes
“Pt. plays tennis 3 days a week and her L[eft] shoulder pain only affects her ball toss for serving” – since
she is right hand dominant and therefore serves using her right arm while tossing the ball into the air with
her left arm. ECF No. 28 at 5 (citing Ex. 6 at 39). Accordingly, I do not find Respondent’s argument
persuasive on this point.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 8 of 10
Petitioner in her supplemental declaration states she received a Tdap vaccine in
her left shoulder of her non-dominant arm. Ex. 13 at 1-2. Petitioner states that she
experienced pain immediately following her vaccination which worsened in the following
24 hours. Ex. 13 at 1-2. Petitioner states that when she got to her car after receiving her
vaccination, she called her sister, a nurse, and reported the shot was too high and that
she was in pain. Id. at 2. Her sister told her it was to be expected, and her pain would
start to go away in the next few days. Id. Petitioner states as time went on her pain
worsened, she did not report it to her PCP’s office when she emailed for prescription
refills, because she thought her shoulder pain would get better on its own, and she was
calling specifically for her medication. Id.
Petitioner further states that on November 5, 2019, she received a flu vaccination
in anticipation of a trip to Hawaii to visit her daughter who was due to give birth to her
grandchild, and that she had no additional pain related to her flu vaccination. Ex. 13 at 2.
By mid-November 2019, Petitioner states her pain had persisted since her Tdap
vaccination, but she believed that it would “heal naturally on its own.” Id. However, after
she was not able to hold her newborn grandchild due to the pain and weakness, she
decided she needed to call her PCP and make an appointment to have her shoulder
examined. Id. Petitioner states that on November 26, 2019, she called her PCP’s office
to report her left shoulder pain and also reported right hip pain. Id. She states when she
saw her PCP on December 4, 2019 she mistakenly estimated she received her Tdap
vaccine approximately five months earlier, instead of seven months earlier. Id. at 3.
Petitioner states that she made this same mistake at her physical therapy appointment
on December 9, 2019 and again at her orthopedic appointment on February 26, 2019. Id.
at 3-4.
Petitioner’s family members all recall that she received the Tdap vaccine in May
2019, in anticipation of the upcoming birth of a grandchild in July 2019. Exs. 17-20.
Thereafter, they each recall that she complained of shoulder pain. Specifically, Ms.
Smerdon, a registered nurse, states that she speaks to her sister each day. Ex. 17 at 1.
She recalls in “May of 2019” that “she received a call from Doni complaining that her arm
hurt because of the vaccination she had just received.” Id. Ms. Smerdon states she
advised her sister “that it was normal to have some pain after a vaccination and that the
pain from a Tdap in particular usually lasts longer. I told her just to give it some time to go
away on its own.” Id. Mr. Corcoran recalls that the “same day Doni got her tetanus vaccine
that she claimed to me that her shoulder hurt and that she thought it might have been
because they administered the vaccine wrong.” Ex. 20 at 1. Ms. Thompson states in her
declaration that she speaks to her mother “frequently over the phone” and describes her
family as “very close.” Ex. 18 at 1. She recalls “my mother calling me on the same day
that she got her vaccination. She complained that her arm hurt. My mom is notorious for
8

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 9 of 10
being fearful of needles, so I remember saying something to the effect of everyone can
handle a shot and that that she would probably be sore for a couple of days before it
would go away on its own.” Id.
I credit Respondent’s arguments about the vagueness and conflicting reports of
certain records pertaining to onset in this case, but note that the Program’s evidentiary
standards are still satisfied by the totality of evidence in this record. As I have previously
observed, “the Vaccine Act clearly does not require that symptoms be recorded within a
specific timeframe to be preponderantly established. Rather, it requires only that onset
[likely] occurs in the relevant timeframe.” Niemi v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1535V, 2021 WL 4146940, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 10, 2021) (citing Section 13) (emphasis
in original). Neither does the Act require that the medical records document an exact date
that the onset of a petitioner’s shoulder pain began. A special master may thus 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).
Based on the medical record, as supported and explained by the witness
declarations filed in support of Petitioner’s claim, I find that Petitioner likely suffered the
onset of her shoulder pain within 48 hours of her May 18, 2019 vaccination.
3. Severity
The final contested issue is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she suffered
“residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months after the
administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine Program.
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine on May 18, 2019,
and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual
symptoms continued at least through November 18, 2019. However, as I have found
above that Petitioner suffered the onset of her injury within 48 hours of her vaccination,
despite a delay of over six months in reporting her shoulder pain following her vaccination
to a medical provider, it necessarily follows (from the evidence of delayed treatment) that
Petitioner has suffered the residual effects or complications of her SIRVA for more than
six months following her May 18, 2019 Tdap vaccine.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established that she suffered the sequela of her injury
for more than six months. However, I note that while my finding on severity follows my
finding on onset, both finding represent close determinations. Petitioner’s substantial
9

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 44 Filed 11/10/25 Page 10 of 10
delay in seeking treatment is problematic, and while Petitioner was able to establish the
necessary onset and severity requirements based on the record as a whole, the fact that
Petitioner was able to forego seeking treatment for such a prolonged period of time,
coupled with her conversative and relatively limited treatment, is evidence that her SIRVA
was very mild. As I discussed at expedited hearing, I am unlikely to award more than
$20,000.00 in pain and suffering based on these factors (and therefore Petitioner should
be mindful of this is seeking resolution of damages).
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Petitioner has established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). There is no history of shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction
that would explain the post-vaccination injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Petitioner’s
pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular
flu vaccine was administered. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). And there is not preponderant
evidence of another condition that would explain the symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). However, even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table
injury or established causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant
evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered
vaccine, residual effects of injury lasting six months, etc. See generally §
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are established as discussed herein (severity)
or undisputed in this claim. I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in
this case.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. A Damages Order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00427-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-20
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/15/2025) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-427V
DONI CORCORAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 15, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Doni Corcoran filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of a Tetanus, Diphtheria, and acellular
Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine received on May 18, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 23, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On October 15, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $15,000.00 in
pain and suffering. Proffer at 2.3 In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner
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).
3 Respondent states in the Proffer that he reserves his right to seek review of my September 23, 2025
Ruling on Entitlement. Proffer at 2, n. 1.

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 5
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 $15,000.00 (representing pain and suffering), to be paid through
an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement
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
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-00427-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
DONI CORCORAN,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-427V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 8, 2021, Doni Corcoran (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq.
(“Vaccine Act”). On September 23, 2021, petitioner filed an amended petition for
compensation. ECF No. 12. She alleges that a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccination administered in her left arm on May 18, 2019, caused a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a Table injury, or, in the alternative, that she suffered a
shoulder injury that was caused-in-fact by the Tdap vaccine. Petition at 2; Amended Petition at
1. On May 25, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
combined Rule 4(c) Report and Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 26.
On September 6, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record on
Entitlement and Joint Response to Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that she was entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 28. Respondent
filed a Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record on October 4, 2023. ECF No.
29. On October 11, 2023, petitioner filed a Reply. ECF No. 30.
1

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 5
An expedited entitlement hearing was held almost two years later, on September 5, 2025.
On September 23, 2025, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner is
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 33. Respondent now files this proffer regarding the amount
of damages to be awarded.1
I. Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $15,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which
petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $15,000.00 to be paid
through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
petitioner, Doni Corcoran.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
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 Special Master’s
September 23, 2025, entitlement decision.
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,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00427-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ PARISA TABASSIAN
PARISA TABASSIAN
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) 305-4035
Parisa.Tabassian@usdoj.gov
Dated: October 15, 2025
3