VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00479
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00479
Petitioner: Helen Osgood
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-11-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35000

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 11, 2021, Helen Osgood filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in her left deltoid on September 26, 2019 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. She was 69 years old at vaccination.

Ms. Osgood reported that left shoulder pain and limited motion began the day after the flu shot. On October 26, 2019, she messaged her primary care physician that she still had pain and limited motion three weeks after the shot and wondered whether the needle had been placed too high. In February 2020, Dr. Freddie Verzosa recorded a four-month history of left shoulder pain with abduction after the flu injection and diagnosed likely mild rotator cuff strain. In March 2020, Dr. Allen Spinner diagnosed adhesive capsulitis and noted that pain began at the end of 2019 after the flu shot. Physical therapist Jessica Silva later documented sudden onset left shoulder pain starting the day after vaccination, persistent worsening, limited motion, adhesive capsulitis, and impingement syndrome; Ms. Osgood explained that COVID concerns had affected access to therapy.

Respondent contested onset within 48 hours and six-month severity, pointing to gaps in treatment. Chief Special Master Corcoran credited Ms. Osgood's consistent reports and Ms. Silva's November 2020 findings. He found entitlement for Table SIRVA on July 15, 2025. On November 19, 2025, he awarded $35,000.00 for pain and suffering as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner, age 69; influenza vaccine September 26, 2019; left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Onset day after shot per later PT record; Oct. 26 2019 PCP message, Feb. 2020 four-month history, March 2020 adhesive capsulitis, Nov. 2020 persistent pain/limited motion with COVID treatment delay. Respondent disputed onset/severity; SM Corcoran found Table SIRVA. Entitlement July 15, 2025; damages November 19, 2025. Award $35,000 pain/suffering. Petition filed January 11, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00479-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-18
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/15/2025) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-479V
HELEN OSGOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 15, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Edwards, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Helen Osgood 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”) following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September
26, 2019. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters (the “SPU”).
After review of the record and the parties’ arguments, I conclude that Petitioner’s
shoulder pain more likely than not began within 48 hours of vaccination, and that she
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-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 2 of 9
suffered the residual effects or complications of a SIRVA for more than six months after
the administration of the vaccine. Petitioner has established all other requirements for a
Table SIRVA. Accordingly, she is entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
On October 20, 2021, this case was assigned to the SPU. ECF No. 12. After
obtaining a subpoena, Petitioner completed filing her medical records on March 31, 2022.
ECF Nos. 11, 31. Respondent represented thereafter that he intended to defend this case
and filed a Rule 4(c) Report on March 13, 2023. ECF Nos. 21, 24 (Rule 4(c) Report).
Respondent opposed entitlement on the ground that “Petitioner cannot preponderantly
establish an onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccine administration, as required
for a Table claim.” ECF No. 24 at 5. Respondent further argued that Petitioner could not
meet the six-month severity requirement because of a long gap in treatment. Id. at 6.
I set this matter on a briefing schedule to address the issues raised in
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 25. Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the
record on June 26, 2023. ECF No. 26 (“Pet’r Mot.”). Respondent filed a response to this
motion on September 7, 2023. ECF No. 28 (“Resp’t Opp’n”). Petitioner did not file a reply
in support of her motion. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. I will only summarize or discuss
evidence that directly pertains to the determinations herein, as informed by the parties’
respective citations to the record and their arguments.
At the time of vaccination, Petitioner was 69 years old and employed as a
commercial real estate attorney. See Ex. 5 at 13, 16. Petitioner’s medical history was
significant for skin cancer, mitral valve prolapse, and obstructive sleep apnea. Throughout
2019, Petitioner was seen by doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City for
treatment of these conditions. See Ex. 5 at 18, 20, 23, 25; Ex. 10 at 47, 51, 66, 72, 79,
87, 94. Petitioner did not have any prior injury or pain in left shoulder.
On September 26, 2019, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid at a
Walgreens pharmacy. Ex. 1 at 2-4. On October 26, 2019, Petitioner used the MyChart
system to send a message to her primary care provider (“PCP”) at Mount Sinai, Dr.
Camila Passias. Ex. 8 at 6. Petitioner wrote,
I had a flu shot about 3 weeks ago and still have pain/limited motion in that
arm (had to take motrin last night and sore now even in resting position now
2

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 3 of 9
it hurts). Haven’t had this before with a flu shot; I assume the Walgreens
person placed the needle too close to my shoulder.
Should I (i) see you first and get your recommendation or (ii) try physical
therapy and follow up with you if I don’t have improvement?
I got the 1st shingles shot last week and that arm has no lingering problem!
Thank you.
Ex. 8 at 6.
On October 29, 2019, Dr. Passias responded,
I’m sorry this happened. This is not something physical therapy will help, it
just has to heal on its own. Sometimes the needle enters the wrong space
and can cause discomfort for a few weeks. Alternate between hot and cold
compresses and take anti inflammatories as needed. Hopefully this [will]
help speed the healing process.
Id.
On January 9, 2020, Petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Aaron Springarn at
Mount Sinai. Ex. 10 at 37. Petitioner complained of a blocked left ear for several weeks
and two colds. Id. Dr. Springarn noted that Petitioner was improving and had a history of
allergies. Id. It does not appear that Petitioner mentioned any left shoulder issues at this
appointment. See id. at 37-39.
On February 4, 2020, Petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Freddie Verzosa for
a routine annual physical. Ex. 6 at 7. Petitioner’s only complaint at this appointment was
recorded as “four month hx of left shoulder pain with abduction – occurred after flu
injection as per patient.” Id. Dr. Verzosa diagnosed Petitioner with “likely mild rotator cuff
strain” and recommended her for physiatry. Id. at 12.
On referral from Dr. Verzosa, Petitioner met with Dr. Allen Spinner on March 9,
2020 at Mt. Sinai’s Interventional Pain, Spine and Sports Medicine Practice. Ex. 3 at 8-
12. Dr. Spinner stated that Petitioner’s left shoulder complaint “began end of 2019 after
having a flu shot.” Id. at 9. He further stated, “[t]he pain is described as aching. The pain
is graded as mild. Exacerbating factors include arm behind the back. Alleviating factors
include rest.” Id. Petitioner informed Dr. Spinner that she felt that the pain was worsening.
Id. Dr. Spinner determined that Petitioner had restriction in the range of motion in her left
arm consistent with adhesive capsulitis. Id. at 3-11. Dr. Spinner recommended that
3

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 4 of 9
Petitioner start physical therapy (“PT”) and then imaging and further intervention if she
did not see improvement. Id. Petitioner was told to return in six weeks for follow-up. Id.
Petitioner’s next medical appointment was on August 20, 2020, with Dr. Verzosa
for back pain, lower abdominal pain, and nausea that had been ongoing for the past two
weeks.3 Ex. 10 at 23. Dr. Verzosa ordered laboratory tests and a spinal x-ray, but believed
that Petitioner’s pain was muscular in nature. Id. at 27. It does not appear that Petitioner
mentioned her left shoulder at this appointment.
Petitioner did not have any further medical appointments until August 2020. On
August 25, 2020, Petitioner had an appointment with a cardiologist regarding her mitral
valve prolapse. Ex. 5 at 13. Petitioner saw the cardiologist again on September 29, 2020,
for further testing and follow-up for this issue. Id. at 7. Separately, related to her history
of obstructive sleep apnea, Dr. Verzosa referred Petitioner to a dentist for a second
opinion on potential removal of an exostosis on her left palate. See Ex. 10 at 14. Petitioner
met with this dentist on September 9, 2020. Id. Petitioner also had a telemedicine
appointment to obtain a refill of her medication for her eye allergies on October 16, 2020.
Id. at 7-8.
On November 11, 2020, Petitioner had a telemedicine appointment with PT
Jessica Silva. Ex. 4 at 7-10. Ms. Silva found that Petitioner had symptoms consistent with
of adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder and impingement syndrome. Id. at 7, 9. Ms.
Silva wrote,
Pt reports sudden onset L shoulder pain starting the day after getting her flu
shot (in the same arm) in the Fall of 2019. She reports that the pain
persisted and worsened and movement of her shoulder became painful and
limited. Her PCP told her there was nothing that she could do and to wait it
out. Eventually the pt sought a physiatry consult in March 2020 and was
dx’d with adhesive capsulitis. PT was recommended but pt has not been
able to get treatment due to COVID concerns. Pt reports that her pain
gradually decreased but there has been no improvement in the past few
months, and her shoulder motion has also remained very limited. This pt is
working from home at a makeshift desk setup. She recently switched from
using a laptop to a desktop and is still struggling with alignment/placement
of her keyboard and mouse. She mostly types/mouses with her R hand so
her L shoulder isn’t as affected.
3 This record states that Petitioner also had a gynecologist appointment the same day, August 20, 2020.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 5 of 9
Specific injury: Pt describes pain down lateral shoulder to upper arm. Pain
is worst with bathing and dressing where she has to reach behind back or
out to side to put on jacket.
Id. Ms. Silva stated that Petitioner would benefit from further PT and recommended a
schedule of twice a week for the next four weeks. Id. at 9. However, there are no records
indicating if Petitioner followed up with additional sessions.4
III. Analysis
A. Applicable Legal Standards
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove
either (1) that he suffered an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table, or (2) that he
suffered an injury that was actually caused by his vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and
11(c)(1). Under either method, however, a petitioner must demonstrate that the injured
person has “suffered the residual effects or complications of his illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.”5 Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i).
The Act prohibits finding that a petitioner has met this burden “based on the claims
of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section
13(a). “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). However, the Federal Circuit has 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).
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.
4 The only record after the November 11, 2020 PT appointment is from an endocrinologist that Petitioner
saw regarding a thyroid nodule on July 1, 2021. Ex. 9 at 13.
5 Petitioner does not allege, nor would the evidence support, either alternative for establishing the severity
requirement: that the alleged injury resulted in death, or “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.”
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(ii), (iii).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 6 of 9
Section 13(b)(1). The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the
medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the
record.” La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 204 (2013), aff’d,
746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8).
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.
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). The
criteria establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation (“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;
6

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 7 of 9
(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).
B. Petitioner Has Established By Preponderant Evidence The Onset Of
Left Shoulder Symptoms Within 48 Hours Post-Vaccination
The first entitlement issue for a Table SIRVA that Respondent disputes is whether
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began within forty-eight (48) hours of her September 26,
2019 vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10)(ii).
In challenging this criterion, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report ignores Petitioner’s
October 26, 2019 message to Dr. Passias. See Rule 4(c) Report at 1-2. Respondent
incorrectly asserts that Petitioner waited until her February 4, 2020 appointment with Dr.
Verzosa, four months and nine days after vaccination, to report any issue with her left
shoulder. See id. at 2, 5. Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the
record acknowledges the complaint to Dr. Passias, but characterizes Petitioner’s wording
as “ambiguous as to whether there was an onset within the requisite statutory period.”
Resp’t Opp’n at 2. Respondent also asserts that Petitioner had a “significant delay” in
seeking treatment after communicating with Dr. Passias and had other medical
appointments without mentioning her shoulder. Id.
I find that Petitioner has established onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours,
consistent with a Table SIRVA. Petitioner consistently informed her treaters of pain that
is most reasonably understood as beginning shortly after vaccination. Petitioner
messaged Dr. Passias that she had received the flu vaccine “about three weeks ago” and
“still” had pain and limited motion in that arm. Ex. 8 at 7. Next, Dr. Verzosa recorded a
“four month hx” of left shoulder pain that occurred “after” the injection. Ex. 6 at 7. Dr.
Spinner reported that Petitioner’s issues began “end of 2019 after having a flu shot.” Ex.
3 at 9. And most specifically and persuasively, Petitioner explained to Ms. Silva that she
had “sudden onset L shoulder pain starting the day after getting her flu shot (in the same
arm) in the Fall of 2019.” Ex. 4 at 7. Petitioner made these statements for the purpose of
obtaining medical treatment, and there is no record of any alternative, later onset.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 8 of 9
In denying that these record portions support Table onset, Respondent effectively
demands that petitioners use a degree of precision in describing their pain onset that is
highly uncommon in SIRVA cases. For example, Respondent suggests that Petitioner’s
report of a four-month history of left shoulder pain to Dr. Verzosa is not consistent with a
48-hour onset because it was actually four months and nine days since vaccination.
Resp’t Opp’n at 2. But within the Vaccine Program, terms like “since,” “shortly after,” and
“following” the vaccination are typically understood to “mean very close in time –
immediately, or at most within a day or two” after vaccination. Flowers v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-285V, 2024 WL 2828211, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 8,
2024), mot. for rev. den’d, 173 Fed. Cl. 613 (2024).
I also do not find that the gaps in Petitioner’s treatment, or the fact that she sought
treatment for conditions other than her left shoulder, outweigh her reports of onset shortly
after vaccination. See Resp’t Opp’n at 2. Petitioner did not initially delay treatment
significantly, but instead messaged Dr. Passias on October 26, 2019, only one month
after vaccination. However, Petitioner was expressly told by Dr. Passias to wait for her
shoulder pain to resolve on its own. See Ex. 8 at 7. It is therefore understandable that she
would not immediately seek further treatment for her left shoulder, and did not discuss
this issue with Dr. Springarn on January 9, 2020, separate from the fact that this
appointment was for an unrelated concern about ear blockage. See Ex. 10 at 37. Further,
and contrary to Respondent’s contention, any delays in how Petitioner sought treatment
for her left shoulder pain after she first reported it is not necessarily probative for
determining when her symptoms actually started.
C. Petitioner Has Established By Preponderant Evidence That She
Suffered Residual Effects For More Than Six Months
I also resolve Respondent’s challenge to severity in Petitioner’s favor. Petitioner’s
November 11, 2020 appointment with Ms. Silva demonstrates that she suffered from pain
and limited motion in her left shoulder for more than six months after vaccination, thus
satisfying the statutory severity requirement. At this appointment, Petitioner specifically
stated that her pain “persisted and worsened” after vaccination, and that even though the
paid had “gradually decreased,” there had been no improvement “in the past few months
and her shoulder motion ha[d] also remained very limited.” Ex. 4 at 7. Petitioner also
mentioned that her left shoulder affected how she used the computer. Id. This record
provides preponderant evidence that Petitioner was still experiencing left shoulder
symptoms more than a year after her vaccination.
Respondent’s only argument on severity is that during the eight-month gap
between her March 9, 2020 physiatry appointment and November 11, 2020 PT
8

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/18/25 Page 9 of 9
appointment, Petitioner saw other treaters, and thus could have done more to address
her shoulder. Resp’t Opp’n at 2. Respondent appears to disbelieve Petitioner’s statement
to Ms. Silva that the COVID-19 Pandemic affected her ability to obtain PT because she
“attended multiple medical visits during this same timeframe.” See id. At most, this
evidence goes to damages, not to whether the Act’s foundational severity requirement is
met.
Petitioner’s medical history establishes the severity requirement. Although
Respondent invokes the prohibition in Section 13(a)(1) against establishing causation
“based on the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by
medical opinion,” that does not apply here. See id. at 3. Petitioner’s report of persistent
pain and limited range of motion is substantiated by the November 11, 2020 medical
record and Ms. Silva’s examination, findings, and recommendation.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement. See generally Rule
4(c) Report. Based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly
established all requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
Accordingly, she need not prove causation-in-fact. Section 11(c)(1)(C). I also find that
Petitioner has satisfied all other statutory requirements. Section 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 Table SIRVA following her
September 296, 2019 flu vaccine administration.
The case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are encouraged to
pursue informal resolution of an appropriate damages award. If the parties determine that
informal resolution is not possible, they should be prepared to promptly brief the
appropriate award of damages.
By no later than Friday, August 15, 2025, Petitioner shall file a Status Report
updating me on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00479-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-22
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/19/2025) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 44 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-479V
HELEN OSGOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 19, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Edwards, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Helen Osgood 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”) following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September
26, 2019. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On July 15, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a SIRVA. On November 19, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $35,000.00. Proffer
at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as
stated in the Proffer.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 44 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $35,000.00, 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.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-00479-UNJ Document 44 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
HELEN OSGOOD,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-479 V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1
On June 26, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration. ECF No. 36. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
September 7, 2023, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 28. On
July 15, 2025, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to
compensation.2 ECF No. 33.
I. Items of Compensation
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$35,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after
the Damages Decision is issued.
2 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s July 15, 2025, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 44 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 5
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/Recommended Payment
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through one lump sum payment as described below and request that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:3
A lump sum payment of $35,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Helen Osgood.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Proof of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
3 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 medical
expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00479-UNJ Document 44 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Katherine Edwards
KATHERINE EDWARDS
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) 742-6374
Katherine.Edwards2@usdoj.gov
Date: November 19, 2025
3