VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00470
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00470
Petitioner: Roosevelt Poore
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-09-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-10
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 11, 2021, Roosevelt Poore filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination on October 10, 2020 caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The record initially contained confusion about the injection arm, but a corrected record filed in May 2021 identified the right arm.

Respondent opposed entitlement, arguing that Mr. Poore had not shown pain onset within 48 hours, pain limited to the vaccinated shoulder, or residual effects lasting more than six months. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the record sufficient. On November 5, 2020, Mr. Poore reported soreness after the shot followed by worsening difficulty using the right upper extremity about two weeks later. He later explained that he delayed physical therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic and tried to manage the shoulder conservatively. The decision treated those facts as enough for Table SIRVA entitlement, while noting that the injury appeared mild and that the treatment delay would matter when damages were assessed.

On September 30, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran granted entitlement. The case remains in the damages phase, and no compensation amount has been awarded in the public ruling.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 10, 2020, right SIRVA. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; damages pending. Respondent disputed severity, 48-hour onset, and pain limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Chief Special Master Corcoran credited corrected right-arm vaccination records, a November 5 report that soreness began after the shot and worsened two weeks later, later declarations, and the COVID-era delay in PT. He found Table SIRVA but noted a mild injury relevant to damages. Decision September 30, 2025. Attorney Michael McLaren; respondent Ryan Pyles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00470-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-04
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/30/2025) regarding 56 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-470V
UNPUBLISHED
ROOSEVELT POORE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 30, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond, Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Roosevelt Poore 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 he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October
10, 2020. Petition at 1.3 The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled
to compensation.
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).
3 Petitioner also alleges that “if it is determined that the petitioner suffers from some underlying immunologic,
neurologic, or genetic disorder, the vaccination administered to him on October 10, 2020, significantly
aggravated that underlying disorder[.]”

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 9
I. Relevant Procedural History
On July 17, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation.
ECF No. 45. Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot meet the severity requirement of
the Vaccine Act, and that the medical records do not reflect onset of shoulder pain within
48 hours of vaccination, or that his pain was limited to his vaccinated shoulder. Id. at 6-9.
On December 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF
No. 50. Respondent opposed the motion on August 26, 2024, reiterating the arguments
set forth in the Rule 4(c) Report. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling
on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 52. Petitioner filed a reply on September 17, 2024.
Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the
Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 54. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 10, 2020. Ex. 1 at 2. The relevant
medical record states that the vaccine was administered in the left deltoid. Id. A corrected
record dated May 2, 2021, however, states the vaccine was given in Petitioner’s right
shoulder. Ex. 11 at 1.
On October 26, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. David Hudson, a family medicine
specialist. Ex. 2 at 2. He noted that he recently had a flu vaccine but did not report
shoulder pain. Id. at 2-5.
Petitioner saw Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Julie Helton on November 3, 2020,
complaining of right shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 15. The record states Petitioner “got the flu
shot in his right deltoid on 10/10/20” and was “having difficulty raising his right arm.” Id.
An exam showed decreased range of motion, tenderness, pain, and reduced strength in
his right shoulder. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with acute right shoulder pain and referred
to orthopedics. Id. at 16.
On November 5, 2020, Petitioner saw NP Jessica Mills for right shoulder pain. Ex.
4 at 2. NP Mills noted Petitioner “had a flu shot on 10/10/2020 and had some soreness in
his shoulder following the shot. [Two] weeks after the flu shot he developed worsening
pain in the shoulder and difficulty with range of motion.” Id. He also exhibited pain with
impingement maneuvers and cross body abduction. Id. at 5-6. An x-ray revealed
significant glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Id. at 6. Petitioner was diagnosed with
impingement syndrome, acute pain, glenohumeral arthritis, and given a steroid injection.
Id.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 9
Petitioner attended two physical therapy sessions on November 18 and 24, 2020.
Ex. 8 at 1-6. At the initial visit, he reported he had some soreness initially after the flu
vaccine and the “symptoms worsened to point that he had difficulty using right [upper
extremity].” Id.
On February 12, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Hudson with reports of increased
right shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 5-6. The record states Petitioner “got flu vaccine in October
2020, after that he started having some right shoulder pain and difficulty raising his right
arm.” Id. An exam showed decreased range of motion and tenderness in his right
shoulder. Id. at 6. Dr. Hudson diagnosed a chronic right shoulder pain that may involve a
rotator cuff problem, but also stated he did not think the symptoms were related to the flu
vaccine. Id. at 7.
Petitioner next sought medical care the following year - on January 31, 2022, when
he again complained of right shoulder pain. Ex. 9 at 14. The record notes Petitioner was
last seen on February 12, 2021, and that he was “[s]till having same shoulder problems”.
Id. at 15. An examination showed decreased range of motion but full strength, and an
MRI was re-ordered. Id. at 14-17. The MRI occurred on February 28, 2022, and showed
a partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, tendinosis, a partial tear of the distal
superior subscapularis tendon fibers, and osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Ex. 10
at 6.
On April 4, 2022, Petitioner saw Dr. Thomas Leong, an orthopedic surgeon, for
right shoulder pain. Ex. 10 at 2. He was diagnosed with impingement syndrome and a
nontraumatic complete tear of the right rotator cuff. Id. at 6-7. Dr. Leong also noted
Petitioner showed mild to moderate glenohumeral arthritis. Id. at 6.
Nine months later, on January 9, 2023, Petitioner returned to PA Mills to schedule
surgical care for this right shoulder, reporting he still had significant pain and weakness.
Ex. 12 at 13. On January 17, 2023, Petitioner had arthroscopic debridement, subacromial
decompression, and rotator cuff repair in his right shoulder. Ex. 12 at 32. Between
February 28 and May 19, 2023, Petitioner attended 25 physical therapy session. Ex. 13
at 3-66.
Petitioner, a truck driver by trade, submitted a declaration in support of the Petition.
Ex. 6. He stated that the vaccine was administered in his right shoulder, but the
vaccination site was incorrectly recorded. Id. at 1. He also stated that after a week he
“was still in pain in [his] right shoulder” but thought he “overworked” his arm. Id. Further,
Petitioner states that he went to physical therapy for his shoulder, but “due to COVID-19
3

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 9
I did not feel comfortable and safer around the crossed of people and other clients in the
building.” Id. at 2.
Sophie Poore, Petitioner’s wife, also submitted a declaration in this matter. Ex. 7.
She stated that Petitioner’s shoulder was sore the day after his vaccination, but that over
the next three weeks the pain continued to intensify. Id.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a
petitioner must establish that 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 an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A
vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests
all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 9
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion,
judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and
aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section
13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is
“consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the
individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A. Severity Requirement
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he
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).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 9
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 10, 2020.
Therefore, he must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that his residual symptoms
continued at least through April 10, 2021 (assuming onset of pain the day of vaccination).
See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070,
at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012)
(dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's injury resolved less than
two months after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner first reported shoulder pain to any medical
treater on November 3, 2020, three weeks after vaccination. Ex. 3 at 15. He initially sought
care until February 12, 2021, approximately four months post vaccination. Ex. 2 at 5-6.
Following that, Petitioner did not seek any medical care for nearly a year, or until January
31, 2022, when he reported right shoulder pain that he was still having since February of
2021. Ex. 9 at 14-15. This record alone, despite the significant gap, supports an ongoing
(if mild) injury. Petitioner also argues that the COVID-19 pandemic was one reason why
he limited his medical treatment, noting that the Governor of South Carolina issued an
executive order directing all residents to limit social interactions and travel in April 2020.
Mot. at 2. (I give this argument little weight, however, since Petitioner’s vaccination
occurred well after this executive order).
Respondent emphasizes that Petitioner regularly treated for four months, but then
delayed for nearly a year before next seeking right shoulder care. Opp. at 7. Further,
Petitioner does not adequately explain why there are no additional records of his alleged
ongoing symptoms, evidence that he attempted remote physical therapy, or that he
reported any ongoing shoulder pain. Id. at 7-8. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought
any medical treatment between February 12, 2021, and January 31, 2022.
The overall record constitutes a sufficient showing of severity to meet the
evidentiary standard, despite the significant treatment gap. It is likely that Petitioner’s
symptoms persisted through the six-month deadline, since the February 2021 record
does not suggest Petitioner’s symptoms were close to cessation. Further, when he
returned to seek care in 2022, the record of his treatment encounter links his shoulder
pain to his earlier shoulder injury. The consistently light history of treatment, however,
suggests a mild injury - which will likely impact damages in this case.
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.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 7 of 9
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain his 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 does not dispute that Petitioner
meets this criterion. I find that he has demonstrated a lack of history of pain, inflammation,
or dysfunction of his right shoulder that would explain his symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
his Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain three weeks after his October 10, 2020
vaccination, when he specifically stated that he had a flu vaccine and is “having difficulty”
with his right arm. Ex. 3 at 15. Thereafter, he consistently linked his shoulder pain to the
flu shot. See Ex.4 at 2 (record from November 5, 2020 stating that Petitioner had some
soreness following his flu vaccine and that he “developed worsening pain” thereafter); Ex.
8 at 1-6 (record from November 18, 2020 stating that Petitioner had initial soreness after
the flu vaccine that “worsened to point that he had difficulty using” his right arm”).
Respondent argues that Petitioner did not mention shoulder pain at his physical
on October 26, 2020, and there is no record of shoulder issues at that time. Opp. at 10.
Additionally, Respondent notes that Petitioner reported he developed pain two weeks
after the flu vaccine. Id.
Even so, a finding of proper onset can be made based on such a record. Program
petitioners are not required to marshal records setting forth with chronographic specificity
the precise day and hour that their onset manifested. Further, Petitioner argues that the
October 26 appointment was a general checkup and he did not believe his pain required
medical attention at that time. Mot. at 7. While Petitioner’s records include some
inconsistencies, he described the pain as worsening, supportive of the conclusion that it
may have been present since vaccination. Additionally, it is common for SIRVA petitioners
to delay seeking treatment, thinking the injury will resolve on its own, especially since
patients are often told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to expect some
soreness and pain for a period of time after. And individuals also often misconstrue the
nature of their injury, and therefore fail to inform treaters of all specific facts relevant to
7

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 8 of 9
onset until later. Otherwise, Petitioner affirmatively and repeatedly linked her shoulder
pain to the flu vaccine.
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 his Vaccinated Shoulder
Respondent contends that although Petitioner alleges a right SIRVA, the vaccine
record states he received the flu vaccine in his left arm. Opp. at 10-11. Respondent’s
reading of the administration record is literally correct (Ex. 1 at 2 (stating the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s left arm)), but his argument does not take into account the
totality of the evidence, which soundly supports a right-side vaccine-related injury.
The overall medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s witness statement, establish
that Petitioner consistently and reported to treaters right shoulder pain related to the flu
vaccine. See, e.g., 3 at 15 (record from November 3, 2020 stating Petitioner “got the flu
shot in his right deltoid on 10/10/20”); Ex. 4 at 2 (record from November 5, 2020 stating
Petitioner “had a flu shot on 10/10/2020 and had some soreness in his shoulder following
the shot”). These records provide sufficient evidence that a vaccination was administered
in Petitioner’s right arm.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner relies on a vaccination record altered over six
months after vaccination. Opp. at 11 (citing Ex. 11 at 1). And this record does appeat to
have been revised. But as described above, there is sufficient evidence even without the
corrected record to find preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s vaccine was administered
in his right shoulder.
Respondent also claims that Petitioner cannot establish that his pain was limited
to his vaccinated shoulder because he reported pain that radiated into his elbow, forearm,
and fingers. Opp. at 11. The record contains reports of non-shoulder pain that radiated
down Petitioner’s arm (Ex. 4 at 2, Ex. 8 at 1), but at the same time consistently identifies
pain and right shoulder issues. Ex. 3 at 15; Ex. 8 at 1-6. Petitioner’s complaints, and the
diagnoses, are consistent with other SIRVA injuries seen in the program including
impingement syndrome and tendinosis. Ex. 4 at 6; Ex. 10 at 6-7.
Admittedly, Petitioner also experienced glenohumeral arthritis which may have
contributed to symptoms outside the shoulder, and pain reported in Petitioner’s arm and
fingers is likely unrelated to his SIRVA. But such issues can be addressed when
calculating damages. The mere existence of such record complaints does not defeat a
8

Case 1:21-vv-00470-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/04/25 Page 9 of 9
showing that Petitioner not only did experience shoulder-specific pain, but that most of
his 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, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
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
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
That record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on
October 10, 2020, in the United States. Ex. 1; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt
of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for her injury. Ex. 5; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that he suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, he has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the severity requirement and 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
9