VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00516
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00516
Petitioner: Catherine Kane
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-05-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 20000

AI-assisted case summary:
Catherine Kane filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of her October 2, 2020 influenza vaccination. She claimed to have experienced residual effects for more than six months and met other program requirements. Respondent denied that petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA injury and denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged right shoulder injury or any other condition. Despite the denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on April 8, 2025, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. The court found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Catherine Kane was awarded a lump sum of $20,000.00 to compensate for all items of damages available under the program. The award was to be paid through an ACH deposit to her counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. The clerk of the court was directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision, absent a motion for review.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00516-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-11
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/07/2023) regarding 30 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0516V
UNPUBLISHED
CATHERINE KANE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 7, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Severity Requirement; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 11, 2021, Catherine Kane 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury or, in the alternative a caused-
in-fact injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 2, 2020. Petition at
1, ¶¶ 1, 14-15. In particular, she maintains her “vaccine related injuries have lasted more
1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Fact 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-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 2 of 9
than six months” (id. at ¶ 16), and that she underwent a “surgical intervention with
inpatient hospitalization” (Exhibit 5 at ¶ 3 – Petitioner’s signed declaration).
For the reasons discussed below, I find the Petitioner continued to suffer the
residual effects of her alleged SIRVA for more than six months. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)
(statutory six-month severity requirement).
I. Relevant Procedural History
Shortly after the case’s initiation, Ms. Kane filed her signed declaration,3 the
medical records required under the Vaccine Act, and her PAR Questionnaire. Exhibits 1-
11, ECF Nos. 6-7; see Section 11(c). On May 7, 2021, the case was activated and
assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution of
cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 9.
On October 18, 2021, Respondent indicated he had not identified any outstanding
medical records or factual issues which could be addressed while awaiting the HHS
review. ECF No. 16. During this same time, Petitioner filed updated medical records on
several occasions. Exhibit 12-15, ECF Nos. 14, 18-19. Petitioner began finalizing a
demand in early 2022. ECF No. 21.
On June 2, 2022, Respondent indicated that he “[wa]s not interested in considering
a demand at this time.” ECF No. 25. Approximately 45 days later – on July 18, 2022, he
filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation. ECF 26. Specifically, Respondent
maintains that Petitioner has not met the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement or
established onset within 48 hours of vaccination as required for a Table SIRVA injury. Id.
at 5-6.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner has satisfied the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement.
See Section 11(c)(1)(D). Because the case did not involve a vaccine related death,
Petitioner may satisfy the requirement by establishing that she suffered the residual
effects of her alleged SIRVA for more than six months or required a surgical intervention
and inpatient hospitalization. See id.
3 Although not notarized, the signed declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28
U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 5.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 3 of 9
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 4 of 9
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make this severity finding after a complete review of the record to include all
medical records, statements, declarations, briefing, and additional evidence filed.
Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to receiving the flu vaccine on October 2, 2020, Ms. Kane (then 68
years old) suffered from obesity; bipolar disorder; depression; vertigo;
varicose veins; lumbar radiculopathy; generalized muscle aches and
weaknesses and arthralgias and joint pain; pain in both feet and knees, the
lower back, the right hip, and left shoulder; and other common conditions
and illnesses. E.g., Exhibit 6 at 5; Exhibit 9 at 31, 42. Although the entries
related to prior hip and left shoulder pain did not include an onset date like
many other entries, it appears these conditions occurred prior to late 2016.
See Exhibit 9 at 91 (including the conditions on a December 2016 list of
past diagnoses). Less than one year before vaccination, she received a
cortisone injection in her left knee. Id. at 43.
• On October 2, 2020, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her right deltoid.
Exhibit 1 at 1.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 5 of 9
• Nineteen days later, on October 21st, Petitioner visited an urgent care
facility, complaining of severe right shoulder pain and stiffness for the last
five days. Exhibit 2 at 2. Although she mentioned the flu vaccine she
received - mistakenly indicating that it was administered one week ago,4
Petitioner attributed her right shoulder pain to lifting luggage while recently
traveling by plane and train. Id. The urgent care physician diagnosed
Petitioner as having muscle strain, prescribed pain medication, and
instructed her to stretch, to apply ice, and to take Ibuprofen. Id. at 3, 5.
• Eight days later, on October 29th, Petitioner was seen by her orthopedist for
right shoulder pain currently at a level of three out of ten, but which could
increase with movement or at night to nine out of ten. Exhibit 3 at 13-14.
Petitioner reported that the pain was not related to any known injury and
began while she was on vacation and traveling by train. Upon examination,
Petitioner was noted to have limited range of motion (“ROM”), and ex-rays
showed a large calcium deposit in her rotator cuff. Id. at 14-15. The
orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with calcific tendinitis of the right shoulder,
ordered an MRI, and indicated a steroid injection and/or surgery should be
considered thereafter. Id. at 15.
• When Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on November 10, 2020, she
reported that her right shoulder pain had improved slightly since the last visit
but was worse than at onset. Exhibit 3 at 8. After reviewing the results of
her MRI – showing “a large calcium deposit . . . involving the entire rotator
cuff, severe subacromial swelling, [and] no evidence of full thickness tear”
(id. at 10), the orthopedist recommended surgery to remove the calcium
deposit. Id. at 9. He ordered a sling and physical therapy (“PT”) to begin ten
to 14 days post-surgery. Id. at 10.
• On November 18, 2020 – 47 days post-vaccination - Petitioner underwent
arthroscopic surgery involving rotator cuff repair, subacromial
decompression, distal clavicle resection, and extensive debridement
including excision of the large calcium deposit. Exhibit 9 at 99. The
orthopedic surgeon opined that “the calcium deposit within the rotator cuff
tear was likely causing at least some degree [of] chemical irritation . . . [but]
there was profound inflammatory reaction within the subacromial space and
subacromial bursa likely related to vaccination, hyper inflammation.” Id. at
4 This incorrect history would place vaccination as occurring on October 14th, instead of the correct date of
October 2nd.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 6 of 9
101. In the surgical report, it was noted that the surgery was performed on
an outpatient basis. Id. at 108.
• At her first post-surgical visit on November 23rd, Petitioner was cleared to
begin PT. Exhibit 3 at 5. She attended 19 PT sessions from November 30th
through February 22, 2021. Exhibits 4, 12.
• By her second post-surgical orthopedic visit on December 21, 2020,
Petitioner reported that she was attending PT twice a week, had no pain
currently, and could experience pain as severe as eight of out ten at night.
Exhibit 9 at 9. Observing that Petitioner’s incisions were healing well, the
orthopedist instructed her to transition to over-the-counter pain medication,
to continue using her sling and attending PT, and to perform any tolerable
activity. Id. at 10.
• By her second to last PT session on February 10, 2021, Petitioner reported
“feel[ing] stronger and with less discomfort,” adding that it “[s]till hurts at
night once in while [sic].” Exhibit 12 at 103.
• At her last PT session on February 16th, the therapist assessed Petitioner
as making good progress but “still present[ing] with limited ability to lift with
resistance above shoulder level.” Exhibit 12 at 104. Petitioner was reported
to have met all short-term goals and partially met one of three long-term
goals. Id. at 105.
• At her orthopedic appointment later that same day – February 16th,
Petitioner report no current pain but occasional pain as great as seven after
PT. Exhibit 13 at 13. It was noted that Petitioner was transitioning to a home
exercise program. Id. at 15.
• When Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on February 25th, she indicated
she “[wa]s doing much better with her ROM and continue[d] to work on her
strength.” Exhibit 13 at 10. Reporting no current pain (id. at 9), she stated
she “[wa]s happy with her surgical outcome.” Id. at 11. Observing that
Petitioner continued to experience limited ROM, the orthopedist instructed
her to return as needed. Id. at 10-11.
• Petitioner did not return to the orthopedist until almost nine months later –
on November 9, 2021. At that visit – characterized as a “recheck of right
shoulder,” Petitioner reported right shoulder pain which began in July 2021,
and occurred only when she was playing slot machines. Exhibit 15 at 17.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 7 of 9
Upon examination, Petitioner’s right shoulder ROM again was noted to be
limited. Id. at 18. Observing that Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery
in November 2020, the orthopedist theorized that Petitioner’s rotator cuff
may need more strengthening through PT or home exercises, or perhaps
an injection to shrink any swollen tissue. Id. at 17-19. He ordered x-rays and
an MRI and instructed Petitioner to follow-up thereafter. Id. at 19.
• When Petitioner was seen again by the orthopedist on November 22nd, she
again exhibited limited ROM in her right shoulder. Exhibit 15 at 12. The
orthopedist informed her that the MRI showed “that her prior rotator cuff
repair [wa]s intact but there [wa]s evidence of swelling. Id. A cortisone
injection was administered. Id. It appears this is the last treatment Petitioner
received.
Added as an exception to the rule requiring six months of sequelae for vaccine-
related injuries not resulting in death in 2000, to allow compensation in intussusception
cases which often required surgical intervention but then resolved in less than six
months,5 a petitioner can satisfy the severity requirement by showing that his vaccine-
related illness “resulted in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.” Section
11(c)(1)(D)(iii). Although Petitioner argues in the alternative that her injury qualifies for
this exception (Exhibit 5 at ¶ 3), the medical records establish that her arthroscopic
surgery was an outpatient procedure (Exhibit 12 at 108). Thus, she is not excused from
demonstrating symptoms of her alleged SIRVA for at least six months - beyond April 2,
2021.
The above medical entries show that Petitioner’s alleged SIRVA injury was much
improved, but not fully resolved, by early 2021 – almost five months post-vaccination. At
orthopedic and PT visits in February, she reported pain only at night or after rigorous
activity such as during PT. Exhibit 12 at 103; Exhibit 13 at 9, 13. However, Petitioner
continued to exhibit reduced strength and ROM. Exhibit 12 at 104; Exhibit 13 at 10-11.
When discharged from PT on February 16th, Petitioner had met all short-term goals, but
none of her long-term goals. Exhibit 12 at 105.
Although Petitioner described the right shoulder pain she experienced in July
through September 2021, as occurring only when playing slots, this description aligns
with the occasional pain she experienced in February 2021, which occurred at night or
with movement. And there is no evidence indicating the reduced strength and ROM
Petitioner continued to experience through late February 2021 had resolved prior to the
5 See Children’s Health Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106–310, § 1701, 114 Stat. 1101, 1151 (2000) (codified
as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(1)(D)(iii)).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 8 of 9
six-month mark – early April 2021. When examined in September 2021, Petitioner
exhibited similar, albeit slightly less, limitations in right shoulder ROM. Compare Exhibit
13 at 10 with Exhibit 15 at 18.
Furthermore, the cause of Petitioner’s September 2021 pain, as hypothesized by
her orthopedist, was confirmed by MRI to be swelling of the rotator cuff which was
repaired in November 2020. Exhibit 15 at 12. This association provides further evidence
linking her later pain to the surgery she underwent in November 2020.
Although a close call, I find there is sufficient evidence to link the symptoms
Petitioner experienced in July through September 2021, to her November 2020 surgery
and alleged SIRVA injury. Additionally, the medical records establish that Petitioner’s
symptoms had not resolved by late February 2021, almost five months post-vaccination.
It is reasonable to infer that her limited ROM continued for more than one month
thereafter.
The mildness of Petitioner’s post-surgical symptoms, intermittent nature of her
pain, and seven-month gap in treatment is highly relevant to damages, and suggests any
award in this case for pain and suffering should be modest. But it does not mean I cannot
find the basic requirement of six months severity met. Accordingly, I find there is
preponderant evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged
SIRVA for more than six months.
V. Scheduling Order
Despite my finding regarding severity, Petitioner still may not prevail in this case.
There are substantial deficiencies which must be countered by Petitioner - related to
onset and a viable alternative cause.
At a minimum, these deficiencies would affect the amount of compensation to be
awarded. Many SIRVA injuries involve the aggravation of pre-existing, albeit
asymptomatic, conditions – a situation meriting a lower award. If successfully litigated,
this case falls squarely into that category. And I would caution Petitioner to recognize this
fact when finalizing her demand.
In light of my finding regarding the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, Petitioner
should forward a reasonable settlement demand and supporting documentation to
Respondent. Respondent should consider the demand and determine whether he is
interested in engaging in settlement discussions. The parties shall file a joint status
report indicating whether they believe an informal settlement could be reached in
8

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/11/23 Page 9 of 9
this case and updating me on their current efforts by no later than Friday, April 28,
2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00516-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-24
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/23/2024) regarding 47 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,, Scheduling Order,,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record,, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0516V
CATHERINE KANE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 23, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DISMISSAL OF TABLE CLAIM1
On January 11, 2021, Catherine Kane 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury or, in the alternative a caused-
in-fact injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 2, 2020. Petition at
1, ¶¶ 1, 14-15.
1 Because this Fact 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 Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 13
For the reasons discussed below, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
conclusion that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain occurred later than 48 hours
post-vaccination – meaning she cannot establish a Table SIRVA. Any causation-in-fact
version of the claim will only succeed if Petitioner can provide preponderant evidence of
a vaccine-caused injury consistent with the pain onset determined in this Ruling.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately one month after the case’s initiation, Ms. Kane filed her signed
declaration,3 the medical records required under the Vaccine Act, and her PAR
Questionnaire. Exhibits 1-11, ECF Nos. 6-7; see Section 11(c). On May 7, 2021, the case
was activated and assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system
for resolution of cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 9.
On October 18, 2021, Respondent indicated he had not identified any outstanding
medical records or factual issues which could be addressed while awaiting the HHS
review. ECF No. 16. During this same time, Petitioner filed updated medical records on
several occasions. Exhibit 12-15, ECF Nos. 14, 18-19. Petitioner began finalizing a
demand in early 2022. ECF No. 21.
On June 2, 2022, Respondent indicated that he “[wa]s not interested in considering
a demand at this time.” ECF No. 25. Approximately 45 days later – on July 18, 2022, he
filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation. ECF 26. Specifically, Respondent
maintained that Petitioner has not met the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement. Id. at 5-6
(citing Section 11(c)(1)(D)).
On March 7, 2023, I issued a Fact Ruling finding there was preponderant evidence
to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged SIRVA for more than six
months - the Vaccine Act’s “severity requirement.” ECF No. 30.4 Noting that the issue had
been a close call, I added that Petitioner still might be unable to advance a Table claim,
due to the substantial deficiencies related to onset and a viable alternative cause. Id. at
8. I instructed the parties to exchange a demand and response to determine whether an
informal settlement could be reached. Id.
3 Although not notarized, the signed declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28
U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 5.
4 This Fact Ruling can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited February 7, 2024) or using the
following westlaw citation: Kane v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Sers., No. 21-0516V, 2023 WL 2885340 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 11, 2023).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 13
During the subsequent four-month prior, the parties exchanged multiple offers and
counteroffers. See Joint Status Report, filed June 15, 2023, ECF No. 37. Petitioner also
filed updated medical records, a supplemental declaration, and a declaration from her
partner.5 Exhibits 16-21, ECF Nos. 29, 31-33.
On July 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report, stating that “[s]ettlement
discussions [had] failed [and] [f]ormal litigation will be necessary to resolve entitlement
and damages.” Status Report at 1, ECF No. 38. She added that she “intends to retain an
orthopedic expert and proceed with briefing on entitlement and damages.” Id. at 2.
Instead, I directed the parties to file briefing and additional evidence regarding pain onset,
stating that I would issue a factual finding. I instructed Petitioner to not retain an expert at
this time.
On August 31, 2023, the parties filed their respective briefs. ECF Nos. 40-41.
Discussing numerous cases in which pain onset within 48 hours was found despite
Respondent’s objections of a lack of specificity, vague language, and inconsistent
descriptions, Petitioner insists she has provided preponderant evidence to support a
finding of symptom onset within a medically appropriate temporal relationship.
Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact Regarding
Timing of Onset (“Pet. Brief”) at 12-16, 18, ECF No. 40. Despite stressing that special
masters have universally credited the medical records created closer in time to
vaccination, she discounts her earlier statements that her pain was due to lifting luggage
in preparation for and while on her trip. Id. at 16-17 (citing Vergara v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 08-0882V, 2014 WL 2795491, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 15, 2014).
Instead, she relies upon her consistent association of her symptoms and the vaccine she
received, made “[f]ollowing the appropriate workup by orthopedists.” Pet. Brief at 18.
Petitioner also emphasizes the opinion of her orthopedic surgeon who performed her
arthroscopic surgery on November 18, 2020 - attributing her right shoulder injury to
vaccination, insisting that it was based upon “a complete history.” Id. at 17.
Respondent counters that “[P]etitioner has not established that the onset of her
alleged shoulder injury occurred within the Table timeframe of forty-eight hours of
vaccination. Respondent’s Brief Addressing Onset at 1, ECF No. 41. Contrasting the
circumstances in this case with those in Kirby,6 Respondent insists that the medical
records from Petitioner’s initial visits clearly and consistently state that her symptoms
5 Both declarations were signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibits 17-
18.
6 Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding the petitioner’s assertion
of six-months sequelae was not defeated by medical records that were silent on the matter – failing to
address either the existence or nonexistence of any ongoing symptoms).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 13
began two weeks post-vaccination, on October 15 or 16, 2020, and thus, should be
afforded substantial weight. Id. at 18.
The next day, Petitioner filed an unsigned travel log and receipts (Exhibit 22) and
impact statement signed by Petitioner,7 describing her condition prior to and after her right
shoulder pain (Exhibit 23). The travel log is not signed but describes daily activities during
a trip taken by Petitioner and her partner in October 15 through 26, 2020, and includes
copies of relevant receipts. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii)
(required onset for pain).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
7 Although this statement was signed by Petitioner, the signature was not dated or provided under penalty
of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 23.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 13
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 13
IV. Finding of Fact
I make this onset finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, statements, declarations, briefing, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
base the findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to receiving the flu vaccine on October 2, 2020, Ms. Kane (then 68
years old) suffered from obesity; bipolar disorder; depression; vertigo;
varicose veins; lumbar radiculopathy; generalized muscle aches and
weaknesses and arthralgias and joint pain; pain in both feet and knees, the
lower back, the right hip, and left shoulder; and other common conditions
and illnesses. E.g., Exhibit 6 at 5; Exhibit 9 at 31, 42. Although the entries
related to prior hip and left shoulder pain did not include an onset date like
many other entries, it appears these conditions occurred prior to late 2016.
See Exhibit 9 at 91 (including the conditions on a December 2016 list of
past diagnoses). Less than one year before vaccination, she received a
cortisone injection in her left knee. Id. at 43.
• On October 2, 2020, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her right deltoid.
Exhibit 1 at 1.
• Nineteen days later, on October 21, 2020, while on vacation,8 Petitioner
visited an urgent care facility in Sacramento, California, complaining of
severe right shoulder pain (rated as ten out of ten) and stiffness for the last
five days.9 Exhibit 2 at 2. She identified the date which corresponds to this
time frame, October 16, 2020, as the date of onset. Id.
• Petitioner answered in the negative when asked about specific injuries or
occurrences that coincided with her symptom onset, such as an injury or
motor vehicle accident. Exhibit 2 at 2. However, there is a handwritten entry
above these questions stating: “super flu shot” on right deltoid one week
ago. Id. The responses and handwritten entry appear to have been provided
by the individual who took Petitioner’s vital signs. In the portion completed
by the urgent care physician, it is noted that Petitioner thought her pain was
8 Receipts provided by Petitioner show that she and her partner traveled by plane from Tampa, Florida to
Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 15, 2020, with a return trip on October 26, 2020. Exhibit 23 at 20-23.
From October 17 through 24, 2020, Petitioner and her partner traveled by train from Milwaukee, Wisconsin
to Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Chicago, Illinois; and back to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Id. at 24-
28.
9 Although I will cite to Exhibit 2, the medical record from this visit is also filed as Exhibit 8. Compare
Exhibit 2 with Exhibit 8.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 13
“from lifting luggage. Has been traveling by plane & train.” Id. The urgent
care provider diagnosed Petitioner as having muscle strain, prescribed pain
medication, and instructed her to stretch, to apply ice, and to take Ibuprofen.
Id. at 3, 5.
• Eight days later, on October 29, 2020, Petitioner was seen by her
orthopedist for right shoulder pain currently at a level of three out of ten, but
which could increase with movement or at night to nine out of ten. Exhibit 3
at 13-14. She also described “numbness; tingling; catching/locking; [and]
popping/clicking.” Id. at 13. Reporting no known injury, Petitioner listed
October 15, 2020, as the onset date. Id. Petitioner stated that she “was on
vacation and traveling by train when pain started.” Id. at 13-14 (the entry is
discernable despite the words location on both pages). Petitioner added that
she had visited an urgent care clinic in California. Id. at 14.
• Upon examination, Petitioner was noted to have limited range of motion
(“ROM”), and ex-rays showed a large calcium deposit in her rotator cuff.
Exhibit 3 at 14-15. The orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with calcific
tendinitis of the right shoulder, ordered an MRI, and indicated a steroid
injection and/or surgery should be considered thereafter. Id. at 15.
• On November 5, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI. Exhibit 3 at 10 (record
from November 18th orthopedic visit). Although Petitioner’s orthopedist
discussed the MRI results at Petitioner’s next orthopedic visit, it does not
appear that the report from this MRI was filed.
• When Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on November 10, 2020, she
reported that her right shoulder pain had improved slightly since the last visit
but was worse than at onset. Exhibit 3 at 8. The record from this visit again
lists October 15, 2020, as the onset date. Id.
• After reviewing the results of her MRI – showing “a large calcium deposit of
RC involving the entire rotator cuff, severe subacromial swelling, [and] no
evidence of full thickness tear” (Exhibit 3 at 10), the orthopedist
recommended surgery to remove the calcium deposit (id. at 9). He ordered
a sling and physical therapy (“PT”) to begin ten to 14 days post-surgery. Id.
at 10. This record, however, includes a complete rotator cuff tear or rupture,
along with calcific tendinitis and pain, in the list of diagnoses. Id.
• On November 18, 2020, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery
involving rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, distal clavicle
7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 13
resection, and extensive debridement including excision of the large
calcium deposit. Exhibit 9 at 99. The “Indications for Operation” portion of
the surgical report, contains the following history:
This is a 68-year-old female who received a flu vaccine in
early October of 2020. She had severe postinjection pain and
visited the ER within days of being vaccinated. She was given
narcotic pain medication and then referred to my office. An
MRI scan and x-rays confirmed a large calcium deposit in the
rotator cuff tear with partial thickness tearing of the rotator
cuff.
Id. at 100 (section title is in all capitalized letters in the original). In
the same section, the orthopedic surgeon noted that Petitioner “also
had all the classic signs and symptoms of vaccine induced hyper
inflammatory reaction in the subacromial space [which [s]he was
able to manage nonsurgically.” He added that he had discussed the
risks and benefits of surgery with Petitioner. Id.
• In the post-surgical report, the surgeon reported the following:
This procedure required excision of a large calcium deposit in
the rotator cuff, which resulted in a defect after excision, the
calcium deposit within the rotator cuff was likely causing at
least some degree [of] chemical irritation . . . [but] there was
profound inflammatory reaction within the subacromial space
and subacromial bursa likely related to vaccination, hyper
inflammation.
Exhibit 9 at 101.
• At her first post-surgical visit with her orthopedist on November 23, 2020,
Petitioner was cleared to begin PT. Exhibit 3 at 5. She attended 19 PT
sessions from November 30th through February 22, 2021. Exhibits 4, 12.
• Petitioner first attended PT on November 30, 2020. Exhibit 4 at 2-4. At her
next session on December 3, 2020, she reported a little improvement after
performing her home exercise program. Id. at 5. She further reported that
“she had a flu shot back in October on her right shoulder and it was hurting
8

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 13
a lot, it continued with pain all this time and was told the flu shot cause[d]
some inflammation around the bursae.” Id.
• Also on December 3, 2020, Petitioner visited her primary care provider
(“PCP”) for an annual exam. Exhibit 6 at 7-9. She reported having COVID
back in February 2020, developing “right shoulder bursitis following flu
vaccine,” and undergoing right rotator cuff surgery to repair a tear. Id. at 8.
Beside the bursitis diagnosis, it is noted that Petitioner had filed a lawsuit.
Id. at 9.
• The first copy of the medical records from Petitioner’s urgent care visit in
Sacramento, California, appears to have been provided in early December
2020. See Exhibit 2 at 1 (signature of individual certifying the records
authenticity dated December 9, 2020). The second copy appears to have
been provided on January 26, 2021. See Exhibit 8 at 1. Most medical
records were requested in January 2021. E.g., Exhibit 6 at 1; Exhibit 7 at 2.
• By her second post-surgical orthopedic visit on December 21, 2020,
Petitioner reported that she was attending PT twice a week, had no pain
currently, and could experience pain as severe as eight of out ten at night.
Exhibit 9 at 9. Observing that Petitioner’s incisions were healing well, the
orthopedist instructed her to transition to over-the-counter pain medication,
to continue using her sling and attending PT, and to perform any tolerable
activity. Id. at 10.
• In her first declaration, Petitioner addressed three basic requirements for
compensation: 1) receipt of a covered vaccine; 2) vaccine administered
within the United States; and 3) a lack of a pending civil action or
compensation. Exhibit 5. Petitioner did not address the onset of her
symptoms, including right shoulder pain. See id.
• In her second declaration, Petitioner focused on the difficulties caused by
her alleged SIRVA. Exhibit 17. Her partner’s declaration, filed at the same
time. also primarily discussed the effects of Petitioner’s alleged injury.
Exhibit 18. Again, both declarations failed to address the onset of
Petitioner’s symptoms. See Exhibits 17-18.
• The travel log and receipts provided in September 2023, showed Petitioner
and her partner traveled by plane on October 15 and 26, 2020, and by train
October 17 through 24, 2020. Exhibit 22. Although the travel log provides
detailed descriptions of each day’s activities, it is not signed or dated. Id.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 10 of 13
Additionally, both Petitioner and her partner are referred to in the third
person, making it difficult to determine who created these journal entries.
Id. The first paragraph states that they stopped at a store on the way to the
airport on October 15, 2020, to buy pain relief patches because “Cathy’s
neck and upper shoulder bothered her last night and was still sore this
morning.” Id. at 2.
• In her impact statement, also provided in September 2023, Petitioner stated
that she “felt a little icky” after returning home after her flu shot. Exhibit 23
at 3. She “took Ibuprofen an put ice on [her] shoulder . . . [and] [s]tarted
sleeping in [her] recliner.” Id. Describing her right shoulder pain as “not
constant, but com[ing] on suddenly and intense,” Petitioner stated that she
“thought [she] may have pulled a muscle in [her] shoulder packing and
prepping for the trip.” Id. at 4. She also gathered the hydrocodone pills given
to her earlier by her dentist and bought supplies at a CVS store on the drive
to the airport in Tampa, Florida. Id. In the remainder of the impact statement,
Petitioner discusses the difficulties she endured during her trip and after she
returned home. See Exhibit 23.
When Petitioner first sought treatment for her right shoulder pain, in October and
early November 2020, she consistently identified an onset date in mid-October 2020,
approximately two weeks post-vaccination. Exhibit 2 at 2; Exhibit 3 at 13, 8 (in chronologic
order). Indeed, she pinpointed exact dates of either October 15th or 16th. Id. And Petitioner
provided detailed information about the events occurring at the time of her pain onset that
coincides with the evidence in this case. Exhibit 2 at 2; Exhibit 3 at 13. For example, when
first seen by her orthopedist on October 29, 2020, Petitioner clearly stated that she “was
on vacation and traveling by train when [her] pain started.” Exhibit 3 at 13-14. Travel
receipts show she began her trip on October 15, 2020. See supra note 8.
Furthermore, Petitioner attributed her right shoulder pain to her physical activities
at that time. When first seen at an urgent care facility on October 21, 2020, Petitioner
theorized that her pain may be due to lifting luggage, noting she had been traveling by
plane and train. Exhibit 2 at 2. Although Petitioner mentioned her flu shot at this visit, she
did not propose a causal connection. Even if she had, it would not counter the mid-
October pain onset she reported since she mistakenly stated the vaccination occurred on
October 13, 2020. See id.
The Federal Circuit’s holding in Cucuras dictates that I afford these initial
representations greater weight. All were provided within two weeks of the identified onset
date for the purpose of obtaining medical care. See Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (listing
the importance of these factors). And the information contained in these records are clear,
10

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 11 of 13
consistent, and complete. See Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20. Also, the provided
receipts show travel dates which are consistent with these statements. Exhibit 23 at 20-
28.
Even when asserting an earlier pain onset date in subsequent statements provided
during litigation, Petitioner continued to focus on pain that began in mid-October,
connecting it to her physical activity when packing for and traveling on her trip (October
15-27, 2020). For example, in the travel journal entry, provided almost three years post-
vaccination, the author recalled on October 15th that Petitioner’s “neck and upper shoulder
bothered her last night and were still sore this morning,” placing the onset of this episode
of pain and soreness during the evening of October 14, 2020. Exhibit 22 at 1.
Petitioner did not report a pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination, or attribute her
symptoms to the flu vaccine she received on October 2, 2020, until seen by her orthopedic
surgeon on November 18, 2020, the date of her arthroscopic surgery. Exhibit 9 at 100.
And her report included a reference to an emergency room visit “within days of being
vaccinated,” for which there is no proof. Id. Furthermore, this first report of immediate
post-injection pain was provided by Petitioner only two weeks before visits to her PCP
and physical therapist – at which times she also mentioned that she was filing a lawsuit
and seeking compensation for her injury. Exhibit 4 at 5; Exhibit 6 at 9. This fact does not
negate the provided information, but it does somewhat diminish the weight it should be
afforded.
Petitioner suggests these later representations should be afforded greater weight
because they were made after “the appropriate workup by orthopedists.” Pet. Brief at 18.
However, the record contains no evidence showing Petitioner’s orthopedist connected
her right shoulder symptoms to a vaccine injection. See Exhibit 3. Instead, he attributed
Petitioner’s symptoms to the large calcium deposit and rotator cuff tear seen on x-rays
and an MRI. Id. at 15. And he proposed surgery to remove this calcium deposit. Id. at 9.
The first treating physician to connect Petitioner’s symptoms to the flu vaccine she
received was the orthopedic surgeon who first saw Petitioner on October 18, 2020, when
he performed her arthroscopic surgery. And he did so based upon the history provided
by Petitioner of immediate pain upon vaccination and a trip to the emergency room a few
days later (which would be October 4, 2020). Exhibit 9 at 100. Despite Petitioner’s
arguments to the contrary, I find the orthopedic surgeon’s causal opinion was not based
upon a complete or accurate history. See Pet. Brief at 18.
Other than these histories provided by Petitioner in the medical records from later
visits to her surgeon, PCP, and physical therapist, the only evidence suggesting right
11

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 12 of 13
shoulder pain that began with vaccination and continued thereafter can be found in the
impact statement signed by Petitioner. However, the statement lacks any signature date
or language stating it was signed under penalty of perjury. Exhibit 23 at 3-4 (onset
description), 12 (signature page). And it also contains information pointing to at least an
increase in pain while packing for her October 15th trip, and the suggestion that Petitioner
may have pulled a muscle at that time. Furthermore, the unsigned travel log completed
by Petitioner or her partner, supports this account of pain when packing for her trip. One
entry describes a stop for icy patches on the drive to the airport on October 15th, because
Petitioner’s “neck and upper shoulder bothered her last night and was still sore this
morning.” Exhibit 22 at 1.
Here, the medical records created closer in time to the onset of Petitioner’s right
shoulder pain contain clear and convincing evidence supporting a pain onset in mid-
October 2020. Thus, the circumstances in this case differ from those in Kirby which
involved medical records that were silent on the issue in dispute (meaning the records
merely omitted mention of a disputed issue). Kirby, 997 F.3d 1378, at 1383. While later
provided medical histories offer some evidence of an earlier pain onset, they are not
sufficient to counter the strong evidence that predates these later records created less
than two months prior to the petition’s filing. Accordingly, I find the preponderant evidence
supports a finding that Petitioner’s right shoulder pain began in mid-October 2020,
approximately two weeks post-vaccination and later than the pain onset within 48 hours
of vaccination required for a Table SIRVA claim.
V. Potential for Off-Table Claim
A petitioner’s failure to establish a Table injury does not necessarily constitute the
end of a case under all circumstances, because he or she might well be able to establish
a non-Table claim for either causation-in-fact or significant aggravation. See Althen v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005); W.C. v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Loving v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (2009)).
Although unlikely given the amount of time between vaccination and onset, and
with ample evidence supporting other causes for Petitioner’s symptoms, it is still possible
that Petitioner may be able to prove that the flu vaccine caused her right shoulder injury.
However, she will need to provide additional evidence of a causal link and appropriate
time frame between the flu vaccine she received and her right shoulder pain.
Formal resolution of this issue will likely require further review and most likely the
retention of experts, which I am not inclined to authorize in the SPU. However, I will first
12

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 48 Filed 05/24/24 Page 13 of 13
allow the parties an additional 30 days to determine if an informal resolution can be
reached. Thereafter, I will transfer the case out of SPU.
Conclusion
Petitioner has not established the onset of her right shoulder pain occurred within
48 hours of her receipt of the flu vaccine on October 2, 2019. Accordingly, her Table
SIRVA claim is dismissed.
Because Petitioner may prevail on an off-Table claim, the parties should make one
more attempt to reach an informal settlement in this case, before I reassign it out of SPU.
The parties shall file a joint status report indicating whether they believe an
informal settlement could be reached in this case and updating me on their current
efforts by no later than Friday, May 31, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00516-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-05
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/08/2025) regarding 63 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (cd) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-516V
Filed: April 8, 2025
CATHERINE KANE,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Mctlaw, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 11, 2021, petitioner 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 her October 2, 2020 influenza (“flu”) vaccination.
Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed April 8, 2025, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she
has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that
there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of
her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1,
4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA
injury, and further denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged right shoulder
injury, any other injury, or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this document 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 document 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,3
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms
set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
• A lump sum of $20,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that
would be available under § 15(a). Id.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 To avoid the unnecessary disclosure of petitioner’s personal information, the AssureSign form included
in the originally filed Stipulation has been removed from the Stipulation attached to this Decision.
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00516-UNJ Document 69 Filed 05/05/25 Page 7 of 7