VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00443
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00443
Petitioner: Meagan Powers
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-10-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-22
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 48333

AI-assisted case summary:
Meagan Powers, a 41-year-old adult, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 11, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on September 22, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On September 4, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that Ms. Powers had established entitlement to compensation for a Table SIRVA claim. The ruling noted that the injury manifested within 48 hours of vaccination and persisted for more than six months, and that the respondent did not raise further objections to entitlement. The public decision, issued on October 30, 2024, details the award of compensation. Ms. Powers was awarded $48,333.59, comprising $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $833.59 for past unreimbursable expenses. This award was based on a stipulation between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent's proffer on the award of compensation, filed on September 23, 2024, indicated agreement from the petitioner on the proffered award. The decision was signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Meagan Powers, age 41, received an influenza vaccine on September 22, 2020. She alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The case proceeded to a ruling on entitlement, issued September 4, 2024, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, which found Petitioner established entitlement to compensation for a Table SIRVA claim. The injury manifested within 48 hours and persisted for over six months. The respondent did not object to entitlement. A decision awarding damages was issued on October 30, 2024, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, based on a stipulation between the parties. Petitioner was awarded $48,333.59, consisting of $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $833.59 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie, Jr. of Howie Law, PC, and Respondent was represented by Matthew Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice. The theory of causation was based on the Vaccine Injury Table (SIRVA).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00443-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-08
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/04/2024 ) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0443V
MEAGAN POWERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 4, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Meagan Powers 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine which she received on
September 22, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 2 of 9
For the following reasons, I find that under the Act’s “more likely than not” standard
of proof, Petitioner has established that her post-vaccination shoulder injury and its
residual effects persisted for over six months, and that her shoulder pain began within
forty-eight (48) hours. And based on the lack of any other objections from Respondent,
along with an independent review of the record, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly
established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim – meaning that she is entitled
to compensation. However, the record also reflects a very mild injury, and the parties are
urged to agree on an appropriate compensation award rather than further litigating the
case.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed her claim less than six months post-vaccination, and without
supporting medical records – coinciding with Respondent’s proposal to remove SIRVA
from the Vaccine Injury Table that would govern future petitions.3 But that same year she
amended the Petition, establishing severity, and also offered a declaration4 and medical
records (ECF Nos. 10 – 11). In January 2022, the case was deemed to be sufficiently
complete, and assigned to the SPU (OSM’s scheme for managing claims that have
traditionally resolved informally or without extensive litigation). In July 2022, Petitioner
was instructed to promptly prepare a demand for Respondent’s consideration while
awaiting completion of Respondent’s medical review. Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25).
Instead on February 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record
regarding her entitlement to compensation for a Table SIRVA (hereinafter “Brief”) (ECF
No. 29).5, 6
3 On July 20, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed the removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Proposed Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43794 (July 20, 2020). The proposed rule was finalized six months
later. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Final Rule,
86 Fed. Reg. 6249 (Jan. 21, 2021). Approximately one month later, the effective date for the final rule was
delayed. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Delay of
Effective Date, 86 Fed. Reg. 10835 (Feb. 23, 2021) (delaying the effective date of the final rule until April
23, 2021). On April 22, 2021, the final rule removing SIRVA from the Vaccine Table was rescinded. National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Withdrawal of Final Rule, 86
Fed. Reg. 21209 (Apr. 22, 2021).
4 Petitioner’s declaration is sworn under penalty of perjury. Ex. 1 at 2; see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 (providing
that such a declaration may be afforded like force and effect as a notarized affidavit).
5 Petitioner’s Brief also set forth her position regarding the appropriate award of damages for a Table SIRVA
claim and was accompanied by Ex. 15 – Out of Pocket Expense Documentation (ECF No. 28).
6 Petitioner also filed a second Amended Petition – but the only amendment seems to be the addition of an
alternative claim of causation-in-fact, in the preamble/ introductory paragraph. Compare First Amended
Petition (ECF No. 9), with Second Amended Petition filed Feb. 28, 2023 (ECF No. 30).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 9
Respondent reported his opposition to the claim on March 7, 2023 (ECF No. 31)
and filed his Rule 4(c) Report on May 2, 2023 (ECF No. 32). The parties made additional
filings. Ex. 16 (ECF No. 34) and Petitioner’s (“Pet.”) Response (ECF No. 35) both filed
June 15, 2023; Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Reply filed July 17, 2023 (ECF No. 36): Pet. Reply
filed July 18, 2023 (ECF No. 37). The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Authority
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 his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,7 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
7 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. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 4 of 9
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
(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) (2017).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 5 of 9
III. Evidence
I have reviewed all submitted evidence, including all medical records and affidavits,
as well as the Petition, the Rule 4(c) Report, and both parties’ briefing. The following
section focuses on the facts most relevant to the disputed issues (severity and onset).
On September 22, 2020, Petitioner received the at-issue flu vaccine in her left
deltoid muscle during an annual gynecological exam with Ann E. Lutich, M.D. Ex. 2 at 1;
Ex. 3 at 2, 51 – 56. She was forty-one (41) years old, with no pertinent medical history.
See generally Exs. 3, 7.
Thirteen (13) days later, on October 5, 2020, Petitioner texted “Ann,”8 asking
whether it was common to have injection site soreness/ pain that was still present after
the flu shot, despite conservative treatment (ice packs, massage, Aleve). Ex. 9 at 1. The
pain was currently “slightly worse than it was the day after the shot.” Id. “Ann” responded
that she had seen “this happen after injections, and it can take several weeks but should
resolve.” Id.
On October 8, 2020, Petitioner texted “David,”9 who responded that it would be
appropriate to have her shoulder evaluated. Ex. 10 at 1.
On October 12, 2020, at Texas Orthopedic Associates, Petitioner filled out new
patient paperwork, including a chief complaint of left shoulder pain that was “constant”
since receiving her flu shot on 9/22/2020. Ex. 4 at 107. That same day, during the initial
evaluation, Robert Scheinberg, M.D., recorded a similar history (“flu vaccine… the pain
in the left shoulder has continued for almost three weeks now”), and exam findings of
injection site tenderness, pain with forward flexion and crossed arm to abduction, and
mild weakness with resisted external rotation and forward flexion. Id. at 118. Dr.
Scheinberg’s assessment was impingement syndrome, while also referencing the
potential of “SIRVA reaction to the flu shot.” Id. at 118. He planned a Medrol dose pack,
formal physical therapy (“PT”) and following up in 2 – 3 weeks. Id.
At an October 21, 2020, follow-up, Dr. Scheinberg recorded that Petitioner’s left
shoulder pain had significantly decreased with the Medrol dose pack, then started to
come back “a little.” Ex. 4 at 115. On exam, the shoulder seemed to be moving much
8 The text messages’ content, the medical records, and Petitioner’s statement (Ex. 1 at ¶ 6) preponderantly
support that “Ann” in the text messages was the treating gynecologist Dr. Lutich.
9 Similarly, the text messages’ content, the medical records, and Petitioner’s statement (Ex. 1 at ¶ 6)
preponderantly support that “David” was David Heck, a physician’s assistant working under Dr.
Scheinberg’s supervision. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 119.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 6 of 9
better; Petitioner was less hesitant and perhaps a bit stronger. Id. Dr. Scheinberg’s plan
was to “remain conservative,” with a focus on PT to build further strength and range of
motion (“ROM”). Id. They also decided against a steroid injection at that time, while
considering that it “might be needed down the road.” Id.
At the October 22, 2020 PT initial evaluation, Petitioner again reported left shoulder
pain and reduced ROM following a flu shot. Ex. 11 at 2. The pain was currently “burning”
and rated 2 – 4/10; she was not taking any medications. Id. Her upper extremity DASH
score was 25/100. Id. at 2, 5. An exam found decreased ROM and tenderness to
palpation. Id. at 2 – 3.10 The assessment was “SIRVA,” for which the therapist
recommended formal PT and a home exercise program (“HEP”), with a focus on
improving her ROM and strength. Id. at 3 – 4. Petitioner returned for formal PT on October
27, and November 2, 2020. Id. at 6 – 7.
At a November 6, 2020 follow-up with Dr. Scheinberg, Petitioner reported that she
had done well with her Medrol dose pack before starting PT. Ex. 4 at 113. Her shoulder
was a little bit better but still uncomfortable; she was also having a hard time reaching
and lifting, and still felt weak. Id. On exam, the shoulder had “full” ROM, but “her
mechanics [were] off[,] she hike[d] her scapula with abduction and forward flexion[, and]
she ha[d] slight weakness to resisted external rotation secondary to pain [and…] mildly
positive Speed’s test.” Id. Dr. Scheinberg administered a subacromial corticosteroid
injection, and recommended continuing PT for six weeks before returning for his
reevaluation. Id.
At two additional PT sessions on November 10 and November 19, 2020, Petitioner
reported that since the steroid injection, her shoulder movement and pain had improved.
She received phonophoresis and manual therapies, plus additional instruction on her
HEP. However, these records do not include physical examination findings, or indicate
any updates to her problems or goals. Ex. 11 at 8 – 9.
There is a subsequent gap in any documentation of Petitioner’s left shoulder – or
any medical encounters for any other reason. That is followed by a June 15, 2021 PT
“recertification” note, which states that Petitioner was “return[ing] with mild weakness,
instability, popping but overall symptoms are better.” Ex. 12 at 3. The physical
examination findings were essentially identical to those from the October 22, 2020 PT
initial evaluation. Compare Ex. 12 at 3 – 4 with Ex. 11 at 2 – 3. Similarly, all of Petitioner’s
answers on a “Patient Outcomes” questionnaire were identical. Compare Ex. 12 at 6 with
10 The PT records indicate that the abnormal exam findings were in the opposing right shoulder – but this
is more likely than not an error, given that it would be inconsistent with the otherwise consistent notations,
in the PT records and others, that Petitioner had suffered only a left shoulder injury.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 7 of 9
Ex. 11 at 5. But the therapist recorded a different upper extremity DASH score of 16/100
(improved from 25/100), and newly assessed: “mild loss of strength, stability, and will
benefit from skilled interventions to restore normal function.” Ex. 12 at 3 – 4. And the
therapist recorded that Petitioner had achieved her short-term goals of independence in
her HEP and full ROM, but not her long-term goals of 90% normal function and
symmetrical scapular motion. Id. The therapist recommended ongoing PT 2 – 3 times per
week for 4 weeks. Id. However, no further records have been filed.
Petitioner’s witness statement maintains that during the seven-month gap in
medical record documentation, she had residual shoulder symptoms despite diligent
adherence to her HEP. Ex. 1 at ¶ 13. Around this time, her husband and stepson were
diagnosed with COVID-19, and she decided to limit in-person contact with others to what
was “absolutely necessary.” Id. She ultimately obtained the PT reevaluation to determine
whether she needed to revise her HEP; no changes were recommended, but she attests
that her symptoms have persisted. Id.
I have also reviewed a June 2023 email from Petitioner’s counsel, and a response
from Petitioner’s physical therapist. See generally Ex. 16.
IV. Analysis
After a review of the entire record, I find that preponderant evidence supports
Petitioner’s entitlement for a Table SIRVA.
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated residual
effects of the alleged left shoulder injury for more than six months after the September
22, 2020, vaccination. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). This is a threshold requirement for pursuing
compensation under the Program for any class of claim. Black v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the “potential petitioner” must not only
make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional threshold, by “submitting supporting
documentation which reasonably demonstrates that a special master has jurisdiction to
hear the merits of the case”), aff’d, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citations
omitted).
Respondent argues that severity cannot be established, emphasizing the gap in
medical record documentation between November 19, 2020, and the one additional PT
encounter on June 15, 2021. Rule 4(c) Report at 4. And Respondent contends that this
PT record does not sufficiently document an ongoing shoulder injury (given the very
similar exam findings when compared to the PT initial evaluation) or any new treatment
plan, and in Respondent’s view, the additional PT record was solely generated to help
support Petitioner’s compensation claim. Id. at 4 – 5, n. 3.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 8 of 9
However, Respondent gives insufficient weight to Petitioner’s receipt of a steroid
injection, and the PT records indicating an ongoing injury, just before the treatment gap.
The PT records also emphasize that Petitioner was instructed to rely on an independent
home exercise program (“HEP”). And this is not a case with intervening medical
encounters for any unrelated concerns, or any positive evidence indicating that her
shoulder had fully recovered, or that some intervening new injury had occurred. Moreover,
while a treatment gap of seven months is somewhat lengthy, it is not inconsistent with the
mild injury that was documented upon Petitioner’s return to PT on June 15, 2021.
The PT records are clearly imperfect, starting with their initial mis-documentation
of abnormal physical exam findings as being in Petitioner’s right, rather than left, arm.
Moreover, the identical physical exam findings suggest that some information was carried
over from the record of the November 2020 PT initial evaluation to the June 2021 PT re-
evaluation.11 Nonetheless in June 2021, the therapist assessed an ongoing shoulder
injury (specifically including a disability rating of 16/100, less than 90% function, and
asymmetric scapular function). Taken together, the medical records contain preponderant
evidence of injury persisting at a mild level until nine months after vaccination.
Respondent also briefly suggests that the Table onset requirement, at 42 C.F.R.
§§ 100.3(a) and (c)(10)(ii), is not met. Rule 4(c) Report at 6. But as noted above (and in
Petitioner’s Motion at 13 – 14 (preceding the Rule 4(c) Report), the medical records
starting just 20 days post-vaccination (plus the even earlier text messages with medical
providers) reflect Petitioner’s consistent history of shoulder pain as beginning with the
vaccination and persisting over time. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest a different
onset. There is preponderant evidence of shoulder pain onset occurring within 48 hours
of vaccination.12
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement (see generally Rule
4(c) Report), and based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has
preponderantly established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. §§
11 The June 2023 emails between Petitioner’s counsel and her physical therapist (Ex. 16) are not particularly
persuasive. As Respondent persuasively notes (Response at 1 – 2), the therapist responded about his
recordkeeping practices generally, rather than offering specific recollections of his reevaluation of Petitioner
roughly two years after the fact.
12 Respondent also suggests that Petitioner must establish the onset of reduced range of motion within 48
hours of vaccine administration. Rule 4(c) Report at 6. But 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) makes no reference
to range of motion occurring within a specified time-frame as a SIRVA requirement, and that provision has
been interpreted to require only proof of pain in the 48-hour period post-vaccination.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 51 Filed 10/08/24 Page 9 of 9
100.3(a), (c)(10)(i, iii, and iv). Accordingly, she need not prove causation-in-fact. Section
11(c)(1)(C). I also find that Petitioner has satisfied all other requirements of Section 11(c)
including the lack of other award or settlement. Sections 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a left-sided SIRVA following administration
of the flu vaccine on September 22, 2020.
The case is now formally in the damages phase. But as detailed above,
notwithstanding the rather prompt medical evaluations, the injury did not involve high pain
ratings or severely reduced range of motion. Following a brief course of oral steroids and
one steroid injection, the injury was manageable with a home exercise program. It was
last documented just nine months post-vaccination. Petitioner’s request for $55,000.00
for her pain and suffering (plus some out-of-pocket expenses), see Motion at 23 – 25, is
not obviously unreasonable. The parties are encouraged to pursue informal resolution of
an appropriate damages award, even if it involves some compromise on both sides.13
If the parties determine that informal resolution is not possible, they should be
prepared to promptly complete their damages briefing (i.e., a response from Respondent,
followed by any brief reply from Petitioner). Afterwards, subject to my availability and
overall docket considerations, the case may potentially be scheduled for an expedited
damages hearing, which would then be memorialized in a “short-form” decision that fully
incorporates and relies upon the hearing transcript.
By no later than Friday, October 18, 2024, Petitioner shall file a Status Report
updating on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages – specifically
stating the date on which Respondent responded to Petitioner’s damages position, see
Brief at 23 - 25. If Respondent has not yet responded, the parties shall confer, and
Petitioner shall report the date by which Respondent expects to respond.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
13 Moreover, while I recognize Petitioner and her counsel’s frustration with the delayed medical review of
the claim in 2022-23, it might have been more productive for Petitioner to convey a demand, rather than
opting for a motion for a ruling on the record – which only led to further briefing from both sides (and
increasingly combative language from Petitioner).
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00443-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-30
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/23/2024 ) regarding 44 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0443V
MEAGAN POWERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Jr., Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Meagan Powers filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine which she received on
September 20, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 4, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On September 23, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $48,333.59
(comprised of $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $833.59 for past unreimbursable
expenses). Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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-00443-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 5
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 $48,333.59 (comprised of $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and
$833.59 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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-00443-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
MEAGAN POWERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-443V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, Meagan Powers (“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 she received on September 22, 2020.1 Petition at 1. On September 4, 2024,
the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement (“Decision”) finding petitioner entitled
to compensation. ECF No. 41.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 The petition also stated a date of vaccination of September 20, 2020, however, the Decision
confirmed the vaccination date of September 22, 2020. Petition at 1; Decision at 5.

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $833.59. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $48,333.59, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Meagan Powers: $48,333.59
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00443-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/30/24 Page 5 of 5
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Matthew L. Murphy
MATTHEW L. MURPHY
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
(202) 598-3895
matthew.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: September 23, 2024
3