VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00511
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00511
Petitioner: Kelsey Gates
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-08-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-09
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 30000

AI-assisted case summary:
Kelsey Gates, an adult, filed a petition for compensation on January 11, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 9, 2019. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On May 6, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that Petitioner established entitlement to compensation for a Table SIRVA. The ruling noted that the injury manifested within 48 hours of vaccination, and despite a gap in treatment, evidence supported the persistence of the injury for over six months. The court also found that the vaccine was likely administered in the left shoulder, as alleged. Petitioner's counsel was Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Meghan Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice. Following the entitlement ruling, the parties engaged in discussions regarding damages. On August 30, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision on Damages, approving a stipulation between the parties. Petitioner was awarded $30,000.00 in a lump sum for pain and suffering, representing all elements of compensation to which she was entitled. The decision was based on a Proffer filed by the respondent, which indicated Petitioner's agreement with the proposed award.

Theory of causation field:
Kelsey Gates, born in 1991, received an influenza vaccine on October 9, 2019. She alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. Petitioner alleged the vaccine was administered in her left shoulder, and presented a Facebook post from the day after vaccination showing a bandage on her left shoulder, and a later post describing pain within 24-48 hours. Medical records from January 2020 showed left shoulder pain, decreased range of motion, and positive impingement signs, assessed as left rotator cuff tendinitis. Physical therapy was initiated, showing improvement, but a gap in treatment occurred between February and October 2020. Petitioner returned to physical therapy in October 2020, reporting ongoing pain and difficulty with activities. The Chief Special Master found that Petitioner established entitlement to a Table SIRVA, meaning causation was presumed. Key findings included that the injury persisted for more than six months, the vaccine was likely administered in the left shoulder, and pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. The parties stipulated to an award of $30,000.00 for pain and suffering, issued on August 30, 2024, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. Petitioner's counsel was Paul R. Brazil, and respondent's counsel was Meghan Murphy.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00511-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-07
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/06/2024) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0511V
KELSEY GATES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 6, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT – SPECIAL PROCESSING UNIT1
On January 11, 2021, Kelsey Gates 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 administered to her on
October 9, 2019. Petition (ECF No. 1). 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-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 10
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for a Fact Ruling
on the Record (ECF No. 27) – resolving the statutory six-month requirement, the vaccine
administration site, and onset in her favor. Based on the lack of any other objections from
Respondent, Petitioner has also established entitlement for a Table SIRVA Claim. The
parties are urged to attempt to promptly reach an informal resolution of damages in light
of the record proof of a very mild injury.
I. Procedural History
Several months after the claim’s initiation and the filing of documents in its support,
it was designated as an SPU matter in November 2021. I subsequently determined that
several fact issues could likely be resolved while the case awaited Respondent’s medical
review (which at the time, was routinely taking over one year). See Scheduling Orders
filed Dec. 17, and June 7, 2022 (ECF Nos. 17, 23).
Petitioner thereafter filed additional evidence as Exs. 8 – 10 (ECF Nos. 18, 20, 24),
then her Motion for a Fact Ruling on the Record on August 9, 2022 (ECF No. 27) (“Pet.
Mot.”). But Respondent argued for completion of his medical review prior to any
adjudication of severity. Response filed Dec. 9, 2022 (ECF No. 8) at 8; see also id. at 9 –
10 (disputing Petitioner’s situs and onset allegations). Respondent then completed the
medical review and formally opposed the claim. Rule 4(c) Report filed Mar. 31, 2023 (ECF
No. 36). He also confirmed that Petitioner should file additional social media evidence. Id.
at n. 2; followed by Pet. Exs. 11 – 12 filed on Compact Disc on Oct. 10, 2023 (ECF No.
39).
The parties subsequently agreed to pursue additional information and validation of
a social media single post. Joint Status Report filed Dec. 4, 2023 (ECF Nos. 40); Order
Authorizing Subpoena onto Facebook filed Dec. 6, 2023 (ECF No. 41). After the
subpoena went unanswered, Petitioner’s counsel obtained screenshots of the post at
issue, and a statement attesting to their authenticity. Exs. 13 – 14; see also related
Informal Communications. Petitioner, but not Respondent, took the opportunity to file
supplemental briefing on the relevance of the social media posts. Pet. Supp.
Memorandum filed Mar. 6, 2024 (ECF No. 44). 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
2

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 10
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,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
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. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 4 of 10
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).
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 evidence most relevant to the disputed criterion.
Petitioner was born in 1991. Pre-vaccination medical records indicate that she was
employed as a teacher, with two young children, and had insurance coverage through
her husband’s military affiliation. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 158, 228; Ex. 7 at 11. Her medical
history included obesity associated with generalized joint pain, migraines, and mental
health counseling. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 107-08.
Petitioner received the at-issue vaccine at a local H-E-B Pharmacy on October 9,
2019. See Ex. 4 at 1 (duplicated at Ex. 3 at 73); Ex. 5 at 5. The pharmacy subsequently
represented that its “records do not contain… location of administration.” Ex. 6 at 1 (Apr.
22, 2021, email to Petitioner’s counsel).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 5 of 10
One day later, on October 10, 2019, Petitioner posted on Facebook a photo of a
bandage on her left shoulder/ upper arm, and the caption: “The smile is a lie but the
bandaid is real. #vaccinated #flu season.” Ex. 11 – “Posts” Folder – “Your_Posts”
Subfolder.
Two months later, on December 13, 2019, in a Facebook Group entitled “Where
the Science Things Are,”4 Petitioner posted the same photo and a longer caption, stating
that “I got my flu vaccine on October 9th this year and within 24 to 48 hours I started to
feel pain in my shoulder (on the same side I received the vaccine). It seemed a little
different from anything I had experienced before but I kind of ignored it thinking it would
go away… So now it’s December and my shoulder still hurts. I also have a limited range
of motion…” Ex. 13 at 1.
After considering that she might need physical therapy (“PT”), Petitioner conducted
internet research on what she was experiencing and discovered information about SIRVA
and the Vaccine Program. Ex. 13 at 1. She resolved to seek medical attention, but she
was nervous about mentioning her concerns of a vaccine injury. Id. After another
individual mentioned the potential of a vaccine being “given too high [and…] go[ing] into
the joint capsule,” Petitioner wrote: “I remember thinking that it was high up on my arm.”
Id. at 7 – 8. Petitioner also wrote: “Turns out, my doctor isn’t at that office anymore… So,
I have to transfer my care to another PCP. Appointment isn’t until January 13th but I’m on
a wait list if anything comes up sooner.” Id. at 8.
On January 13, 2020, Chaitanya Alli, M.D., took over Petitioner’s primary care.
See Ex. 3 at 52 (“transfer from Dr. Eseh-Logue” at the same practice group). Petitioner’s
chief complaint was left shoulder pain that was intermittent, gradually worsening,
aggravated by activity and lying down, and not relieved by acetaminophen. Id. The injury
had been present “since October 2019… no history of extremity trauma… She is not sure
when she injured it… [She] thinks it started after she received her flu vaccine.” Id. A
physical exam found decreased ROM and positive impingement signs. Id. at 54. Dr. Alli’s
assessment was left rotator cuff tendinitis, for which she prescribed meloxicam (Mobic),
activity restrictions, PT, and following up in 4 weeks. Ex. 3 at 55; see also Ex. 5 at 6
(pharmacy record of meloxicam).
Upon starting PT on January 20, 2020, Petitioner reported “L shoulder pain since
Oct. 2019.” Ex. 9 at 51. “[A] flu shot… inflamed her shoulder. Pain has become
progressively worse… Current pain: 4/10.” Id. A physical exam found decreased ROM
4 “Where the Science Things Are” describes itself as a forum for members to “offer opinions, personal
experiences, and discuss evidence,” while cautioning that “[n]othing replaces an ongoing relationship and
treatment from qualified medical professionals.” Ex. 13 at 1 (emphasis in the original).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 6 of 10
(164 degrees flexion; and approximately 85 degrees on abduction, and internal and
external rotation), positive impingement signs, and biceps tenderness. Id. at 49. The
therapist assessed left rotator cuff and biceps tendinopathy, to be treated with formal PT
and a home exercise program (“HEP”). Id. at 51 – 54.
At the next formal PT session on February 4, 2020, Petitioner reported that she
had been performing her HEP up to twice per day. Ex. 9 at 42. By February 21, 2020, she
felt that her shoulder had improved a lot since the start of PT. Id. at 38. And by the fourth
formal PT session on February 28, 2020, Petitioner had achieved her goals of increased
ROM (170 degrees flexion and abduction) and improved function (over 60/80). Id. at 32.
She no longer had pain or difficulty sleeping or with general movements, only with certain
activities such as opening jars, lifting items to waist level or overhead, pushing up on
hands, and carrying a small suitcase. Id. at 34. The therapist provided an updated HEP
and told Petitioner to reach out if she needed additional formal therapy. Id. at 31-33.
There is thereafter a gap in formal treatment of any kind of slightly over five months.
On August 3, 2020, Petitioner presented to a local emergency room for evaluation of
acute abdominal pain. After a CT scan and abdominal and pelvic ultrasound were found
to be negative, she was told to follow up with primary care within 2 – 3 days. Ex. 10 at 54
- 57. These records do not specifically document the left shoulder. See generally Ex. 10.
Petitioner was unable to schedule a timely appointment with Dr. Alli, and instead
obtained an August 6, 2020, telemedicine encounter with a new primary care provider,
Bianca Persaud, M.D. Ex. 7 at 10, 28. The encounter was again focused on the acute
abdominal pain, for which Dr. Persaud prescribed simethicone. Id. at 28 – 30.
Petitioner missed an appointment with Dr. Alli to discuss “shoulder pain” on
September 21, 2020. Ex. 3 at 46. But they met two weeks later, on October 5, 2020:
Patient has been having shoulder pain for a long time. She thinks it has
been more than a year. Denies any triggering events or falls or injuries after
which it came on. She just woke up 1 day and started feeling it she thought
she slept wrong, but the pain gradually continued almost on a daily basis to
a point that is it limiting her range of motion significantly. She was seen here
before. She was sent for physical therapy but that has to be discontinued
secondary to pandemic. She denies any tingling or numbness or pain
radiating into the arm. Denies any falls. May use NSAIDs as needed.
Though after a few sessions of therapy initially in the beginning of year
shoulder pain did improve to some extent she still has pain on a daily basis
even picking up groceries or any movements involving picking up any
6

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 7 of 10
weight with that arm feels pain and weakness. PT was doing PT, but
stopped during COVID and now she needs a new order.
Dr. Alli’s physical exam found “pain with abduction and external rotation about 90
degrees. Positive Hawkins, liftoff test, empty can test. Normal arc sign, normal internal
and external rotation.” Id. at 27. Dr. Alli assessed a left rotator cuff tendinitis, prescribed
meloxicam, referred to PT, and told Petitioner to return if her symptoms worsened or failed
to improve. Id. at 28. During the October 5, 2020, encounter, Petitioner also received a
flu vaccine in her right deltoid. Id. at 29.
Upon restarting PT at the same practice on October 14, 2020, Petitioner reported
that her left shoulder injury was causing difficulty sleeping, and increased difficulty with
activities of daily living, lifting items to waist level and overhead, pushing up on hands,
and carrying a small suitcase. Ex. 3 at 23 - 24. She recounted that formal therapy at the
beginning of 2020 had been helpful, but had been “stopped” by the Pandemic. Id. at 16.
She was “still better than when she initially started PT,” notwithstanding the ongoing
complaints. Id. On physical examination, her left shoulder had full ROM with pain at the
end range (rated 5/10), impingement, and instability. Id. at 17. The therapist assessed
that she had “excellent rehab potential.” Id. Petitioner returned for formal PT on October
16, 21, 26, 28, and 30, and November 2, 2020. Ex. 9 at 7 – 12. There is no formal
discharge summary. See generally Ex. 9.
Petitioner’s left shoulder was used for administration of a Tdap vaccine, during an
appointment with the primary care physician Dr. Persaud on December 9, 2020. Ex. 7 at
22 – 23. There are no further medical records.
IV. Findings of Fact
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 injury for more than six months after the October 9, 2019,
vaccination. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). This is a threshold requirement for pursuing
compensation under the Program. 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).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 8 of 10
Respondent’s severity objections are based on the “lengthy gap” in left shoulder
treatment, including one “no-show,” and two encounters for unrelated complaints
(between February 28 – October 5, 2020). Rule 4(c) Report at 5 – 6. Respondent’s
objection is not unreasonable, particularly given that Petitioner’s overall treatment was
very conservative, and that she raised very minor complaints upon voluntarily
discontinuing her formal PT in favor of a home exercise program, before the Pandemic
emerged. But “a discharge from medical care does not necessarily establish that there
are no residual effects.” Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014
WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July, 18, 2014), cited in Brief at 5. There is also
evidence that Petitioner’s PCP encountered a scheduling backlog in mid-2020,5 and that
Petitioner subsequently recounted a chronic injury with no intervening causes. Her
providers also documented ongoing objective complaints, particularly of pain on the upper
limits of ROM. Overall, there is preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s alleged shoulder
injury persisted (at a minor level) throughout the treatment gap, and therefore for over six
months.6
Second, Respondent questions Petitioner’s allegation that the subject vaccine was
administered in her left, injured shoulder. Resp. Response at 7. Petitioner has not able to
produce a contemporaneous record going towards that fact – but only because no such
record was maintained by the pharmacy. See Ex. 6 at 1. And Petitioner has filed
contemporaneous non-medical photographic evidence of a band-aid on her left shoulder
within one day after the vaccination, Ex. 11, as well as later medical records reflecting her
history of a left-sided administration, see, e.g., Ex. 9 at 51.7 In the absence of any
evidence or additional persuasive argument to the contrary, Petitioner has established a
likely left-sided administration.
The third disputed issue is the timing of Petitioner’s shoulder pain onset. 42 C.F.R.
§§ 100.3(a) and (c)(10)(ii). On this point, Respondent emphasizes the initial 96-day delay
before treatment, followed by somewhat non-specific descriptions of pain starting “after”
the vaccine. Response at 9 – 10; Rule 4(c) Report at 7 – 8. But Petitioner correctly notes
5 Additionally, Petitioner’s unexplained failure to attend a September 21, 2020, PCP appointment to discuss
her shoulder pain is not particularly probative given that she returned to that provider just two weeks later.
6 This severity determination is made based on a review of the medical record evidence and the parties’
legal arguments. Respondent previously averred that “severity required a medical determination,” see
Response at 7 - 9. But while Respondent opposed severity in the subsequently-filed Rule 4(c) Report only
reiterating Petitioner’s treatment gap, and does not appear to include any particular “medical analysis.”
7 The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 9 of 10
that such specificity is not required for a legal determination in her favor, and that “no
medical record or other evidence explicitly puts onset at more than 48 hours.” Brief at 6.
Petitioner’s December 2019 Facebook post helps to supplement her onset
allegation. First, while Respondent objects that the evidence is “unauthenticated,”
Petitioner made diligent efforts to satisfy this concern – including unsuccessful service of
a subpoena onto Facebook, followed by a legal assistant’s sworn statement of how she
screen-shotted the post. And while Petitioner’s post references the Vaccine Program, it
also recounts her plan to seek medical attention – and was made within a group devoted
to discussing various medical/ scientific issues. While not entitled to the same weight as
a medical record, it is nonetheless entitled to some weight, in assessing Petitioner’s belief
of when her shoulder pain began. Overall, the evidence preponderates in favor of
shoulder pain beginning within 48 hours of the vaccine’s administration.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Based on a full review of the record and the lack of any further objections from
Respondent, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement to compensation for a Table
SIRVA.
As the case proceeds to the damages phase, both parties shall refer to the above
review of the medical records – which reflect a three-month initial treatment delay, very
conservative treatment (most prominently, limited prescriptions for meloxicam; short
courses of formal PT; and self-discharges to a HEP); and Petitioner’s apparent
acceptance of another vaccine in the subject left shoulder approximately 14 months into
the course. It is also noted that Petitioner previously represented that no Medicaid lien
exists in this case, and she conveyed a demand, apparently limited to past pain and
suffering, for Respondent’s consideration. See Scheduling Order filed June 7, 2022 (ECF
No. 23); Pet. Status Report filed Aug. 9, 2022 (ECF No. 26). Based on these factors and
the case’s age, the parties shall promptly endeavor to reach an informal resolution of
damages – and if that is not possible, consider requesting the case’s inclusion at an
upcoming Motions Day.
Accordingly, Petitioner shall file a status report updating on the progress
made toward informally resolving damages by no later than Friday, June 14, 2024.
The status report shall state the date by which Respondent responded to the previously-
submitted demand. 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.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/07/24 Page 10 of 10
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00511-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-30
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/30/2024) regarding 51 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 55 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0511V
KELSEY GATES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 30, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Kelsey Gates 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 administered to her on
October 9, 2019. Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
On May 6, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a SIRVA. On August 30, 2024, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 55 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 5
proffered award. Id. at 1 – 2. 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 Proffer, I award the following compensation:
A lump sum of $30,000.00 (for pain and suffering) in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner. Proffer at 1 – 2. This amount represents all elements of
compensation to which Petitioner is entitled under Section 15(a). Id. at 2.
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-00511-UNJ Document 55 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
KELSEY GATES, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-511V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, Kelsey Gates (“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”), as amended. The petition alleges that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccination on October 9, 2019, petitioner suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. On March 3, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case was not appropriate for
compensation under the terms of the Act. ECF No. 36. After further proceedings, on May 6,
2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to
compensation. ECF No. 45.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $30,000.00 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.

Case 1:21-vv-00511-UNJ Document 55 Filed 09/30/24 Page 4 of 5
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 Chief Special Master Corcoran’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $30,000.00, in
the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Kelsey Gates: $30,000.00
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
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
1 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-00511-UNJ Document 55 Filed 09/30/24 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Meghan R. Murphy
MEGHAN R. MURPHY
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) 616-4264
meghan.r.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: August 30, 2024
3