VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00525
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00525
Petitioner: Michelle Pickett
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-10-09
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-06-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 48252

AI-assisted case summary:
Michelle Pickett filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 11, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on June 30, 2020. Her symptoms persisted for more than six months. The respondent initially did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the statutory severity requirement for SIRVA. A ruling on entitlement was issued on December 4, 2023, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on September 3, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, recommending an award of $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $752.42 to satisfy a State of Ohio Medicaid lien. Petitioner agreed with this proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages on October 9, 2024, awarding the total amount of $48,252.42.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00525-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-23
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/22/2023) regarding 29 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0525V
MICHELLE PICKETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 22, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Requirement; Tetanus Diphtheria
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT 1
On January 11, 2021, Michelle Pickett filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from a tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine
she received on June 30, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner more likely than not suffered
the residual effects of her alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months.
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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 6
Relevant Procedural History
On October 24, 2022, about 22 months after the case was initiated, Respondent
filed his Rule 4(c) Report, arguing that Petitioner “has failed to satisfy the threshold that
she suffered from her alleged vaccine injury for more than six months.” Rule 4(c) Report
(ECF No. 24) at 5. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on
January 18, 2023. ECF No. 26. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on March 17, 2023.
ECF No. 27. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Factual History
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left deltoid during an annual physical with
her primary care provider (“PCP”) on June 30, 2020, in Mentor, OH. Ex. 1 at 16. Sixteen
days later (July 16, 2020), she returned to her PCP with reports of left shoulder pain that
she reported began one hour after her vaccination. Id. at 7. On exam, Petitioner had
“severe” tenderness to palpation and reduced range of motion. Id. at 8. Her PCP
suspected a SIRVA injury, prescribed naproxen, and referred Petitioner to an orthopedist.
Id.
On July 30, 2020, now one month after vaccination, Petitioner presented to an
orthopedist for evaluation. Ex. 5 at 7. Petitioner reported “significant pain” in her left
shoulder that had gotten worse over time. Id. She was diagnosed with tendinopathy of
the left rotator cuff, prescribed anti-inflammatory medication, and referred to physical
therapy. Id. at 8. Petitioner was offered a steroid injection, but declined due to
experiencing side effects with previous steroid treatment. Id.
On August 4, 2020, Petitioner obtained an initial physical therapy evaluation. Ex.
4 at 28. She complained of disrupted sleep and decreased functional abilities. Id. She
had an initial DASH disability score of 50%. Id. at 31-32. Petitioner had a total of eleven
physical therapy treatments through December 1, 2020. Id. at 2-25. At her final treatment,
her range of motion was almost normal, but she “still had some pain/weakness at EROM
for scaption.” Id. at 2. She had met all her physical therapy goals except attaining full
shoulder strength. Id. Her DASH score had fallen to 11%, reflecting continued reports of
mild difficulty with daily activities. Id. at 5. Petitioner rated her pain at 2/10. Id. at 3.
Petitioner returned to her orthopedist for a final follow-up on December 2, 2020.
Id. at 2. At that appointment, Petitioner reported that she felt that her shoulder “was back
to normal,” and that she was “able to do all the things she needs to be able to do” with it.
Id. Her shoulder exam was normal, but strength was not tested. Id. at 3. Petitioner was
2

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 6
advised to continue her home exercises “to continue keeping her shoulder strong” and
was released for all activities “as tolerated.” Id. at 2.
Petitioner did not seek any further medical treatment for her shoulder injury.
B. Witness Testimony
Petitioner submitted a declaration stating only that she “suffered the residual
effects or complications of [her] left shoulder injuries for more than six months,” without
further detail. Ex. 2 at ¶5.
Petitioner’s husband, Craig Teubl, submitted an affidavit in support of the claim.
Ex. 8. He recalled that Petitioner displayed “little improvement” during her time in physical
therapy. Id. at ¶5. He stated that Petitioner “was in constant pain” for “around eight
months.” Id. at ¶8. He remembered helping Petitioner with dressing because she could
not lift her arm over her head. Id. at ¶6, 10. In February 2021 (eight months after
vaccination), he recalled observing Petitioner donning a long-sleeved dress – which was
challenging for her and caused her to wince in pain. Id. at ¶10. He also stated that
Petitioner was unable to lift a wheelchair into the trunk of the car. Id. at ¶7, 9.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
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 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
3

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 6
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. 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 & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later 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 & Human 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 & Human 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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 5 of 6
IV. Finding of Fact - Severity
To establish six months of residual effects, Petitioner must demonstrate that her
symptoms more likely than not continued until December 30, 2020. The record is clear,
and Respondent does not dispute, that Petitioner had continuous treatment for her injury
through the orthopedist appointment on December 2, 2020 – five months and two days
after her vaccination. Ex. 5 at 2. Respondent argues that Petitioner has not provided
preponderant evidence that her injury lasted beyond this date, noting that Petitioner
reported her shoulder as “back to normal” at this time, and that her shoulder exam
revealed normal range of motion and negative impingement testing. Resp. at 7-9. Thus,
the medical record (which stops with this December 2nd treatment visit) establishes
Petitioner had by this time recovered from her SIRVA.
The record is very thin on this issue, and Respondent reasonably raises severity
as a potential stumbling-block to entitlement. But I am nevertheless able to find, based
on the totality of the evidence, that there is barely enough preponderant support for the
conclusion that Petitioner’s symptoms lasted the six months required by the Act.
A combination of record proof plus witness statements permit me to reach this
conclusion. First, I note that the December 2020 records do not unambiguously establish
that Petitioner’s SIRVA had resolved. At the time of her discharge from physical therapy
on December 1, 2020, Petitioner continued to demonstrate strength deficits and pain with
certain movements, specifically scaption (the movement of raising the arms up and
forward). Ex. 4 at 2. Although she had made significant improvement with her functional
abilities, she had not met all of her treatment goals, and continued to report mild difficulty
with several daily tasks. Id. at 5. The following day, at her final orthopedist appointment,
she did report recovery, and showed no deficits on exam. Ex. 5 at 2-3. But the record
does not indicate any strength testing, however, despite evidence that this remained an
issue. Further, while Respondent is correct that the orthopedist did not recommend any
additional formal treatment, Petitioner was instructed to continue doing home exercises,
with an expressly-stated focus on strengthening, and she was released to return to all
activities “as tolerated,” suggesting that she understood there to be at least some mild
remaining symptoms at that time. Id. at 2. This evidence, limited as it is, does allow the
conclusion that Petitioner’s condition had not yet fully recovered, but would instead
remain a lingering issue.
Second, the witness statements bulwark this construction of the medical records.
Although Petitioner’s declaration does not provide any helpful detail about her experience
with her injury, her husband, Craig Teubl, provided affidavit testimony. See Ex. 2; Ex. 8.
Respondent rightfully notes that some of Mr. Teubl’s testimony seems to contradict the
medical record evidence – specifically that Ms. Pickett experienced “little improvement’
5

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/23/23 Page 6 of 6
from physical therapy. Resp. at 7, footnote 2. However, the conflicting testimony reflects
subjective opinion, rather than factual observation, and I need not give it weight. At the
same time, however, Mr. Teubl does provide observations of Ms. Pickett’s behavior that
make it more likely than not her symptoms persisted somewhat. For example, Mr. Teubl
described Ms. Pickett as being unable to lift her mother’s wheelchair into the trunk of the
car, a deficit that lasted through June 15, 2021. Ex. 8 at ¶7, 9. He also described Ms.
Pickett struggling to don a long-sleeved dress on February 20, 2021, observing her wince
in pain during the task. Id. at 10. These reflect firsthand observations, factual in nature,
that corroborate the deficits – pain with scaption movements and weakness –documented
in Petitioner’s medical records at the end of her formal treatment. See Ex. 4 at 2.
Thus, after consideration of the entire record, I find that the evidence
preponderates in Petitioner’s favor on severity, if weakly. This is a very “close-call,” and
in such cases, Program case law counsels deciding the matter in a petitioner’s favor.
Roberts v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed.
Cl. Aug. 29, 2013). (I also note, however, that these same facts establish that Petitioner’s
SIRVA was exceedingly mild, and therefore no more than a modest pain and suffering
award is warranted).
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole, Petitioner has preponderantly established
that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury for at least six
months as required by the Vaccine Act.
Respondent shall file, by Monday, October 30, 2023, a status report indicating
how he intends to proceed in light of this fact ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00525-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/04/2023) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0525V
MICHELLE PICKETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 4, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Michelle Pickett filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following a tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination
she received on June 30, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her “SIRVA
symptoms have persisted for more than six months.” Petition at ¶ 5. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 27, 2023, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report in which
he states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that, as a
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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2
result of my July 20, 2022 finding that Petitioner has satisfied the statutory severity
requirement, he “will not continue to contest that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined
by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “as the record now
stands, and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of Fact, Respondent does not
dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
Act.” Id. at 5-6.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00525-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-09
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/05/2024) regarding 49 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/09/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0525V
MICHELLE PICKETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 5, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Michelle Pickett filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following a Tdap vaccine she received on June 30, 2020.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On December 4, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On September 3, 2024, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$47,500.00 for pain and suffering plus $752.42 to satisfy a State of Ohio Medicaid lien.
Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an
award as stated in the Proffer.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/09/24 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award the following:
• A lump sum payment of $47,500.00 in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner, Michelle Pickett; and
• A lump sum payment of $752.42 in the form of a check jointly payable to
Petitioner, Michelle Pickett, and Ohio Department of Medicaid, ATTN: Jamie
Queen, Re: #106294456-00, Ohio Tort Recovery Unit, 5475 Rings Road, Suite
125, Dublin, OH 43017, representing reimbursement of a Medicaid lien for
services received by Petitioner from the State of Ohio.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/09/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MICHELLE PICKETT,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-525V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, Michelle Pickett (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended
(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”), following the
administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on June 30, 2020.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(I)(C); Petition at 1. On November 27, 2023, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (“respondent”) filed an amended Rule 4(c) report indicating that, in light of
Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact that petitioner met the severity requirement,
and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. See ECF No. 33. On
December 4, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
entitled to compensation. See ECF No. 35.

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/09/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$47,500.00 for pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Medicaid Lien
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy the State of Ohio
Medicaid lien in the amount of $752.42, which represents full satisfaction of any right of
subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of Ohio may have against any
individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of Ohio has made to or on behalf of
petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as
a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about June 30, 2020, under Title XIX
of the Social Security Act.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through two lump sum payments described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1
A. A lump sum payment of $47,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and
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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00525-UNJ Document 53 Filed 10/09/24 Page 5 of 5
B. A lump sum payment of $752.42, representing compensation for satisfaction of the
State of Ohio Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and:
Ohio Department of Medicaid
ATTN: Jamie Queen
Re: #106294456-00
Ohio Tort Recovery Unit
5475 Rings Road Suite 125
Dublin, OH 43017
Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Ohio Department of Medicaid for satisfaction of
the Medicaid lien.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
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
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Felicia D. Langel
FELICIA D. LANGEL
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) 305-3148
felicia.d.langel@usdoj.gov
DATED: September 3, 2024
3