VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00533
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00533
Petitioner: Patricia Bulluck
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2023-08-07
Vaccine: tetanus
Vaccination date: 2020-11-04
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60000

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Bulluck filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a direct result of a tetanus vaccine she received on November 4, 2020. The respondent initially intended to oppose compensation, believing Bulluck had not met the six-month severity requirement. However, after a fact ruling confirmed the severity requirement was met, the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report stating they would not defend the case. The respondent conceded that Bulluck had satisfied the criteria for SIRVA, a defined Table injury, while reserving the right to appeal the entitlement decision. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the court found Bulluck entitled to compensation. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued. The respondent proffered an award of $60,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Bulluck agreed to. The court awarded Bulluck a lump sum payment of $60,000.00 for her pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00533-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-08
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/06/2023) regarding 27 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0533V
UNPUBLISHED
PATRICIA BULLUCK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 6, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Severity Requirement; Tetanus,
Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
Respondent. Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On December 30, 2020, Patricia Bulluck 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, as a direct and proximate result
of a vaccine she received on November 4, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 12.
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-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 2 of 10
A fact dispute has arisen between the parties regarding one of the primary
entitlement requirements and whether Petitioner can satisfy it based on the record. 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
During the eight months following the Petition’s initiation, Ms. Bulluck filed some of
the medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-6, ECF Nos. 9-10, 12; see
Section 11(c). On February 3, 2022, 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. 16.
Less than two months later (on March 23, 2022), Petitioner filed updated medical
records from her primary care provider (“PCP”). Exhibits 8-9, ECF No. 19. Thereafter, she
was allowed the opportunity to provide additional evidence regarding the six-month
severity requirement. ECF No. 20.
On August 12, 2022, Petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit and brief regarding
severity. Exhibit 10, ECF No. 22; Petitioner’s Brief Regarding Six-Month Sequela
Requirement (“Brief”), ECF No. 23. On October 25, 2022, Respondent filed his response.
Response to Brief (“Opp.”), ECF No. 25.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA
for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
requirement).
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
2

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 3 of 10
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.
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.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 4 of 10
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 November 4, 2020, Ms. Bulluck (then
57 years old) suffered from common illnesses and conditions such as
sinusitis, back pain, and an issue with her right foot, but no prior right
shoulder pain. See generally, Exhibit 2. In September 2020, she underwent
surgery on her right wrist and hand. Id. at 429.
• On November 4, 2020, Petitioner received a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine in her right deltoid during a morning PCP
appointment. Exhibit 1 at 2; Exhibit 2 at 427-463 (vaccine mentioned on
page 445).
• Later the same day, Petitioner attended her fourth post-surgical
occupational therapy visit for her hand. Exhibit 4 at 7. At this visit, Petitioner
rated her right thumb pain, described as soreness and throbbing, as two out
of ten. Id.
• On November 11th, Petitioner attended her fifth right-hand therapy visit,
reporting less pain and functional limitation. Exhibit 4 at 25. She also
underwent x-rays of her right hand. Exhibit 3 at 14.
• Petitioner first complained of right shoulder pain “for the past week” at her
sixth right-hand therapy visit on November 18th. Exhibit 4 at 46. She did not
discuss any potential cause of her pain at this time, or otherwise associate
it with her vaccination from earlier that month.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 5 of 10
• On November 30th, Petitioner emailed her PCP, complaining of increasing
right shoulder pain since her tetanus shot on November 4th. Exhibit 2 at 465.
She added that she was not able to “lift her arm up over [her] head or around
[her] back.” Id. (This is thus the first record in which Petitioner’s pain was
specifically linked to the vaccination).
• At her next therapy session for her right hand (on December 4, 2020), it was
noted that Petitioner presented with “continued shoulder pain.” Exhibit 4 at
62.
• On December 21st, Petitioner sought care from her orthopedist for right
shoulder pain and limited range of motion (“ROM”) which she attributed to
the tetanus shot she received on November 4th. Exhibit 3 at 62. Rating her
pain level as eight out of ten, she described aching pain and limited ROM.
Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis, prescribed physical
therapy (“PT”), and administered a steroid injection into her glenohumeral
joint. Id. at 69.
• Approximately one month later – on January 26, 2021, Petitioner began PT
for her right shoulder pain and limited ROM. Exhibit 5 at 10. Rating her pain
between zero and eight, she stated that the steroid injection she received
in December “helped some,” but she still had limited ROM. Id.
• At her next PT session on February 23rd, Petitioner described her right
shoulder pain as sharp, intermittent, and at a severity rating ranging from
three to six. Exhibit 5 at 63. Reporting that her condition had improved for a
few weeks before being aggravated, she indicated that she “felt like she had
more ROM for a little while.” Id.
• At her third PT session on March 9th, it was noted that Petitioner’s symptoms
had improved. Exhibit 5 at 89. However, Petitioner reported pain at a level
of seven out of ten with movement. Id.
• At her fourth PT session on March 23rd, Petitioner reported the same sharp
and intermittent pain, this time at a level of five out of ten. Exhibit 5 at 114.
• Petitioner reported the same level of pain - five out of ten - at her fifth and
final PT session on April 12th (less than a month before the six-month mark
from onset). Exhibit 5 at 140. Stating that her shoulder was doing about the
5

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 6 of 10
same without “too many flare ups,” she indicated that “[o]verhead reaching
causes pain.” Id.
• On April 19th (now 15 days before the six-month mark), Petitioner returned
to the orthopedist for treatment of her right shoulder pain and limited ROM
since the tetanus vaccine she received on November 4, 2020. Exhibit 4 at
108. She reported that the injection she received in late December 2020
provided 90 percent relief for a few weeks. Id. Upon examination, she again
exhibited limitations in ROM as compared to her left shoulder movement.
Id. at 113. The orthopedist assessed Petitioner as having adhesive
capsulitis and subacromial impingement. He recommended ultrasound-
guided steroid injections in Petitioner’s subacromial and glenohumeral
joints followed by a week-long break from PT. Discussing the possibility of
surgery, Petitioner was instructed to return for a follow-up appointment in
four to six weeks. Id. It appears Petitioner proceeded with the steroid
injections as post-injection instructions were provided. Id. at 118.
• On May 5th, Petitioner returned to her PCP for anxiety linked to the COVID
vaccine.3 Exhibit 8 at 26. Concerned about the vaccine’s safety, Ms. Bulluck
indicated she “d[id] not even want to get near someone who ha[d] gotten
the vaccine.” Id. Although there is no discussion regarding any ongoing right
shoulder pain in this record, chronic right shoulder adhesive capsulitis is
included on the Problem List. Id. at 21. It appears this entry was added
sometime between mid-April and the May 5th appointment date. See id. at
21. A similar entry was not included on the Problem List as of March 17,
2021. Id. at 16.
• In late June and early July 2021, Petitioner emailed her PCP requesting
documentation of her COVID vaccine-related anxiety. Exhibit 8 at 46, 51,
56. It appears she was concerned that she would be fired from her job as a
Human Resources representative at Duke School of Medicine. Id. at 56;
see, e.g. Exhibit 2 at 478 (regarding her occupation). Chronic right shoulder
adhesive capsulitis continued to be included under current problems. Id. at
52.
• On December 9th, Petitioner returned to her PCP for an annual physical.
Exhibit 8 at 67. She also complained of muscle spasms for which she has
taken medication since at least 2017. Id. In this medical record, adhesive
3 COVID vaccines were first administered in the United States in December 2020. See
https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 7 of 10
capsulitis and subacromial impingement are included on a list of active
problems (id. at 69), and Petitioner reported a current right shoulder pain
level of five (id. at 67).
• A few weeks later – on December 23rd, Petitioner visited her PCP for colon
screening. Exhibit 8 at 95. The same right shoulder conditions were listed
as problems. Id.
• Less than three months later - on March 10, 2022 - Petitioner visited her
PCP, seeking pain medication for her right shoulder pain. Exhibit 9 at 6. She
indicated she had tried salon pas which did not help much and would be
changing jobs and insurance soon. Id. This is the most recent medical
record filed.
• In her second affidavit, executed in August 2022, Petitioner indicates that
“[a]lthough the steroid injection she received on April 19, 2021 helped, [she]
continued to have right shoulder pain and limitations in range of motion.”
Exhibit 10 at ¶ 7. She maintains that she continued to experience pain and
ROM limitations throughout 2021, and discussed these symptoms with
providers. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Petitioner also alleges that her anxiety related to the
COVID pandemic were heightened by her negative experience with the
tetanus vaccine. Id. at ¶ 11.
To satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement in this case, Petitioner must show
that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six-months. Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (severity requirement for cases not involving death or inpatient
hospitalization and surgical intervention). She thus must establish that her symptoms
continued beyond at least May 4, 2021 (assuming an onset date of November 4, 2020 –
which the record does preponderantly support).
Although she acknowledges that she failed to pursue treatment between her last
orthopedic appointment on April 19, 2021 (when she received multiple steroid injections)
until March 22, 2022, Petitioner insists that she has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy
the six-month severity requirement. Brief at 9. She argues that this gap in treatment “may
speak to the severity of her injury and, perhaps, the amount of compensation she may be
due – but it has nothing to do with her entitlement to compensation.” Id. To support her
argument, Petitioner cites the addition and continued inclusion of adhesive capsulitis and
impingement of the right shoulder on her problems list and her orthopedist’s comment
that she may require surgery to address her right shoulder condition. Id. at 6-9 (citing her
affidavit, Exhibit 10 at ¶ 8). Additionally, Petitioner attributes her failure to seek treatment
7

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 8 of 10
during this eleven-month period to her fear of COVID-19 during the worldwide pandemic.
Brief at 9 (citing her affidavit, Exhibit 10 at ¶ 8).
Respondent does not accept this argument. Opp. at 4. He maintains instead that
the eight-month gap from April 19th through December 21, 2021, and three-month gap
thereafter, “call into question whether [P]etitioner’s treatment after April 2021 was related
to her alleged vaccine-related injury.” Id. Noting that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – from November 2020 through April 2021,
Respondent dismisses her rationale for avoiding treatment during the remainder of 2021.
Id. at 4-5.
The parties have muddled their arguments in this case by conflating Petitioner’s
fear of the COVID vaccine with a fear of the COVID pandemic/COVID illness. I agree that
a fear of the illness would not explain Petitioner’s pursuit of treatment from November
2020 through April 2021, then lapse in treatment until March 2022.4 However, given the
prevalence of COVID vaccinations (the administration of which peaked in April 2021),5 a
fear of the COVID vaccine would coincide with the gap in treatment seen in this case.
And the medical records clearly establish that the COVID vaccine was the source of
Petitioner’s fear. Exhibit 8 at 26.
Otherwise, the record preponderantly supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s
shoulder pain lasted more than six months from onset, despite treatment gaps. The above
medical entries show that Petitioner complained of severe right shoulder pain (at a level
of eight out of ten) when seeking treatment from her orthopedist on December 21, 2020.
Exhibit 3 at 62. When beginning PT approximately one month later, Petitioner reported
temporary relief from the glenohumeral joint steroid injection administered on December
21st. Exhibit 5 at 10. Thereafter, she reported pain at a more moderate, but still significant,
level – from three to seven out of ten. Exhibit 5 at 63, 89, 114, 140. At her last orthopedic
appointment on April 19, 2021 – only two weeks before the requisite six-month date,
Petitioner continued to exhibit limited ROM and report right shoulder pain. Exhibit 4 at
108.
Similar to the relief provided by her December 2020 steroid injection, Petitioner
likely gained some relief from the steroid injections she received on April 19, 2021. And I
4 COVID deaths in the United States reached an all-time high during the week of January 13, 2021. See
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends weeklydeaths select 00 (last visited on Apr. 3, 2023).
5 COVID vaccines were not available until mid-December 2020, and the number of vaccine administrations
peaked during mid-April 2021. See https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends (last visited
Apr. 3, 2023).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 9 of 10
cannot discern exactly when the entry related to chronic right shoulder adhesive capsulitis
which appeared in Petitioner’s May 5th medical record was added. See Exhibit 8 at 21.
However, an additional entry regarding right shoulder impingement appeared in the
medical record from Petitioner’s PCP visit on December 9th (id. at 69), and Petitioner
reported right shoulder pain at that visit (id. at 67). These entries support Petitioner’s claim
that any relief obtained from her April 2021 steroid injections was also temporary.
Petitioner’s later right shoulder pain appears to have been milder than what she
previously experienced. And, despite the mention of right shoulder pain in December
2021, Petitioner did not seek treatment for her shoulder condition. The purpose of the visit
was instead for an annual physical, and more time was spent discussing muscle spasms
Petitioner had experienced since 2017. Exhibit 8 at 67. However, when Petitioner sought
treatment again for her left shoulder pain in March 2022, she requested pain medication
(Exhibit 9 at 6), although it appears that she has not returned for further treatment since
that visit.
In light of the foregoing, there is sufficient evidence to link the symptoms Petitioner
experienced in December 2021 and March 2022 with her alleged SIRVA injury that began
in the fall of 2020. The medical records establish that Petitioner’s symptoms had not
resolved by late April 2021, almost six months post-vaccination. And it is reasonable to
infer Petitioner did not obtain a complete resolution from her April 2021 steroid injections.
This supposition is supported by later medical record entries which show her treating
physicians continued to characterize her right shoulder adhesive capsulitis as an ongoing
problem, and Petitioner continued to experience some pain thereafter. She has also has
provided a logical reason why she would be reluctant to pursue treatment during this time
– her fear of the COVID vaccine – although in this case the gap is less relevant than the
evidence that her pain had not ceased well after vaccination.
The mildness of Petitioner’s later symptoms and 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
In light of my finding regarding the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, Petitioner
should file any updated medical records and forward a reasonable demand and
supporting documentation to Respondent. Respondent should consider his tentative
position in this case.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/08/23 Page 10 of 10
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed
following my ruling by no later than Tuesday, May 23, 2023. Petitioner shall file a
status report updating me on her efforts to convey a demand and supporting
documentation to Respondent by no later than Tuesday, May 23, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00533-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/15/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0533V
PATRICIA BULLUCK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 15, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Patricia Bulluck 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, as a direct and proximate result
of a tetanus vaccine she received on November 4, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 12.
Petitioner further alleges that she received the tetanus vaccine in the United States and
that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil case or received compensation for
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-00533-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2
her SIRVA injury. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 8-9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit.
ECF No. 16.
On March 13, 2023, Respondent filed a status report, indicating he intended to
oppose compensation based upon his belief that Petitioner had failed to satisfy the
Vaccine Act’s six-month severity requirement. ECF No. 26; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
Thereafter - on April 6, 2023, I issued a fact ruling, finding Petitioner had suffered the
residual effects of her alleged SIRVA injury for more than six months. ECF No. 27.
On June 15, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, indicating he “will not
defend this case.” Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 32. Specifically, while reserving his
right to appeal my fact ruling, he “has concluded that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria
set forth in the Vaccine Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for
SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Noting that he is not waiving any defenses he may exert during the
damages phase, Respondent asks that “the scope of damages to be awarded is limited
to [P]etitioner’s right SIRVA and its related sequelae only.” Id.
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-00533-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-07
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/07/2023) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0533V
PATRICIA BULLUCK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 7, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Patricia Bulluck 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, as a direct and proximate result
of a tetanus vaccine she received on November 4, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 12. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 15, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA injury. On July 7, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 for her
pain and suffering. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner
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-00533-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 5
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.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $60,000.00, for her pain and suffering, in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would
be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
PATRICIA BULLUCK,
Petitioner, No. 21-533V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. SPU
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, Patricia Bulluck (“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. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right-sided
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus vaccine
she received on November 4, 2020. On June 15, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c)
report, advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that
petitioner satisfied the Act’s six-month 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. ECF No. 32. Later that day, the Chief Special Master
issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 33.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth
herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this
proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However,
respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief
Special Master’s June 15, 2023, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00533-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 in pain and suffering
damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $60,000.00,
representing compensation for all elements of economic and noneconomic damages, in the form
of a check payable to petitioner, Patricia Bulluck.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Patricia Bulluck $60,000.00
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
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 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-00533-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Julia M. Collison
JULIA M. COLLISON
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-0102
Julia.collison@usdoj.gov
Dated: July 7, 2023
3