VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00538
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00538
Petitioner: G. Matthew Kosma
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2023-11-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-02-15
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 65000

AI-assisted case summary:
G. Matthew Kosma filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 11, 2021, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on February 15, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On June 28, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued Findings of Fact, concluding that the evidence demonstrated the vaccination was administered in the petitioner's left arm as alleged. Following this ruling, on August 11, 2023, the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that, in light of the fact ruling and the medical record, the respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The respondent did not dispute that the petitioner had satisfied all legal requisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's position and the record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on August 11, 2023, finding the petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on October 3, 2023, the respondent filed a proffer on the award of compensation, stating that the petitioner agreed with the proffered award. On November 14, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision on Damages, awarding G. Matthew Kosma a lump sum payment of $65,000.00 for pain and suffering, to be paid by check to the petitioner. This award represents compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Act. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers of Turning Point Litigation, and the respondent was represented by Madelyn Weeks of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner G. Matthew Kosma alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine administered on February 15, 2020. The case proceeded as a Table claim. The respondent conceded entitlement after the Chief Special Master issued a ruling confirming the vaccine was administered in the left arm, which was a key factual finding. The respondent's Rule 4(c) Report stated that, based on this fact ruling and the medical record, the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner satisfied all legal requisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act, acknowledging SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The parties subsequently agreed to a stipulated award. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded G. Matthew Kosma a lump sum of $65,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers, and respondent was represented by Madelyn Weeks. The decision on damages was issued on November 14, 2023, following the entitlement ruling on August 11, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00538-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-28
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/28/2023) regarding 28 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-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0538V
G. MATTHEW KOSMA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 28, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 11, 2021, G. Matthew Kosma 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 alleged that he suffered a left-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, which was causally related to
his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on February 15, 2020. For the reasons discussed
below, I find the flu vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s left arm, as
alleged.
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
The Petition averred that the vaccine administration record “incorrectly notes that
the influenza vaccine was given in the right deltoid, when it was in fact given in the left
deltoid.” Petition (ECF No. 1) at ¶ 2. Five months later, Mr. Kosma filed the statutorily-
required medical records and affidavits (which had been cited in the Petition). Exs. 1-9,
at ECF No. 6. Exhibit 7 is an affidavit from his wife, who recalled witnessing the subject
vaccine’s administration into Petitioner’s left arm. Ex. 7 at ¶ 3. On December 2, 2021, the
case was activated and assigned to OSM’s Special Processing Unit (“SPU”), which is
intended to resolve likely-to-settle claims. ECF No. 10.
On March 16, 2022, Respondent requested that Petitioner submit “any and all
available evidence to support his allegation that the vaccine was administered in his left
arm.” ECF No. 14. On April 29, 2022, Petitioner filed the complaint report he submitted to
the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy on March 5, 2020. Ex. 11, at ECF No. 17. He also
filed orthopedics records. Ex. 10, at ECF No. 16.
In May 2022, the parties were informed that I was willing to receive any briefing
and then formally resolve the site issue (a factual issue capable of resolution while the
case awaited Respondent’s medical review). Respondent objected, asserting that his still-
pending medical review might point instead towards an alternative diagnosis of brachial
neuritis (also known as Parsonage-Turner syndrome) which would render the site issue
moot, since brachial neuritis can occur in the non-vaccinated arm.3 But on July 20, 2022,
I advised that the vaccine administration record was likely not fatal to the site issue (and
hence more broadly to the SIRVA claim), and therefore directed Petitioner to convey a
demand to Respondent. See ECF No. 19; see also ECF No. 20 (reporting conveyance of
a demand on September 19, 2022).
On February 6, 2023, Respondent informally advised that he had completed a
medical review of the case, and he requested a fact ruling determining the site of vaccine
administration. The parties subsequently agreed upon a briefing schedule. See Informal
Communication and Scheduling Order dated February 8, 2023 (Non-PDF). Petitioner filed
his Motion on March 30, 2023, ECF No. 23 (“Motion”). Respondent filed a Response on
May 31, 2023, ECF No. 25 (“Response”). Petitioner filed a Reply on June 20, 2023, ECF
No. 27 (“Reply”). The site issue is now ripe for adjudication.
3 See, e.g., 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(I), (c)(6) (supporting this proposition – albeit in the context of the Table
listing for brachial neuritis following tetanus toxoid vaccines, which are not at issue in this case).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 3 of 8
II. Issue
At issue is whether (a) Petitioner received the subject vaccine in his injured left
arm. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10).
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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 4 of 8
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).
IV. Findings of Fact
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. This ruling, however, is limited to
resolving only a single fact issue: the site of vaccine administration. Accordingly, I will
only summarize or discuss evidence that directly pertains to this issue, as informed by
both parties’ respective citations to the record and their arguments. Specifically:
• On February 15, 2020, Petitioner presented to a CVS pharmacy, where he hand-
wrote answers to certain screening questions and signed his consent to receiving
the subject flu vaccine. Ex. 1 at 1-2. The same record contains printed information
regarding the patient, indicates “Site: Right Deltoid”, and indicates the vaccine
administrator “Small Inurinh, RPh”. Id. The administrator’s handwritten signature is
illegible. Id. at 2.
• Sixteen (16) days after vaccination, on March 2, 2020, Petitioner presented to his
established primary care provider, Jennifer Day, M.D., for a chief complaint of left
shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 63. Petitioner reported that the pain had “started
4

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 5 of 8
immediately after a flu shot given at a local CVS… the shot was given in the upper
part of the arm… the person who administered it was standing and pointed the
needle at an angle.” Id. Petitioner reported that the pain had persisted and
worsened over time. Id. A physical exam of the left shoulder revealed pain and
limited range of motion but no redness, warmth, or swelling. Id. at 64. Dr. Day’s
assessment was acute pain of the left shoulder, for which she prescribed tramadol.
Id. Dr. Day also would “try to obtain records from CVS for his flu shot
administration.” Id. After an x-ray was unrevealing, she referred to an orthopedist
(identified below) for further evaluation. Id. at 72.
• At a March 4, 2020, initial consult with orthopedist Zachary Sandbulte, M.D.,
Petitioner reported a left shoulder injury with onset of February 15, 2020. Ex. 3
at 5. He reported that “A flu vaccine precipitated his symptoms… The vaccine was
‘higher on his shoulder than normal,’ located directly inferior to the lateral aspect
of the acromion… He has had significant pain or weakness in his shoulder since
that time… He ha[d] not injured the shoulder in the past.” Id. After undertaking a
physical exam, Dr. Sandbulte assessed a left rotator cuff injury, for which he
prescribed diclofenac. Id. at 5-8. Dr. Sandbulte reevaluated Petitioner on several
occasions throughout 2020 – but the records do not contain any different or
additional information pertaining to the site of vaccine administration. See
generally Ex. 3.
• On March 5, 2020, Petitioner submitted a complaint to the North Carolina Board of
Pharmacy, concerning a “left rotator cuff injury due to improperly placed
injection.” Ex. 11 at 2. He reported:
“My wife and I went to CVS… for flu vaccines. The pharmacist
[Small Anurinh, named elsewhere in the complaint] prepared
the paperwork and sent us to a room next to the pharmacy
counter. Then a pharmacy technician came in. Her name is
Kinsey Richardson. The pharmacist did not come in to
supervise. My wife got her injection first as I watched. I noticed
that Ms. Richardson placed the shot very high on the shoulder
directly into the shoulder joint at a downward angle. I thought
that was odd, but assumed she knew what she was doing.
Then she did the same thing to me… Within hours, I was in
quite a bit of pain…”
Ex. 11 at 1. Petitioner also reported that CVS had not yet fulfilled his doctor’s
records request. Id. Petitioner expressed hope that the pharmacy board would take
his complaint “very seriously,” and stated concern for “more victims.” Id.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 6 of 8
A header message confirms that Petitioner had “successfully submitted [his]
complaint” and that the board “would review [his] complaint and take appropriate
action as necessary…” including possibly "contact[ing] [Petitioner] or any other
involved parties [he] entered for additional details.” Id. at 1. No further information
about the complaint has been filed.
• An EMG/NCS report reflects a patient history of “left shoulder pain after a flu
shot.” Ex. 4 at 23.
• At a November 13, 2020, initial consult with neurologist Lucie Lauve, M.D.,
Petitioner recounted that on February 15th, at his local CVS, a flu vaccine was
“delivered into his shoulder joint” and “almost immediately he had severe pain and
weakness” in his left shoulder. Ex. 4 at 48-50.
• At a March 17, 2021, follow-up, Dr. Lauve wrote that Petitioner “developed severe
arm pain and weakness immediately following a flu vaccination at CVS that was
delivered directly into his left shoulder joint on 02/15/2020.” Ex. 5 at 8.
• At a May 18, 2021, initial consult, orthopedic surgeon Mark Schweppe, M.D.
recorded that “[Petitioner] had experienced shoulder symptoms since receiving a
flu vaccination on 2/14/2020. After the injection, he noted significant discomfort
localized to the shoulder with associated weakness…” Ex. 10 at 17; see also id. at
8-9 (follow-up encounter).
• In their May 27, 2021, affidavits, Petitioner and his wife briefly recount going to
CVS together and both observing the subject vaccine’s administration in
Petitioner’s left arm. See generally Exs. 7-8.
As recognized above (and in numerous prior opinions), “[m]edical records, in
general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain information
supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical
conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528. But based upon my experience resolving SPU
SIRVA cases (over 1,300 cases since my appointment as Chief Special Master) as well
as additional SIRVA cases handled in chambers, it is not unusual for the information
regarding site of vaccination in computerized systems to be incorrect. Many of these
systems use a “dropdown” menu to enter information, and the relevant fields are often
not updated each time a separate vaccine is administered to a different individual. See,
e.g., Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at
*6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-
0811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 7 of 8
Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL
6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018). Later provided and more detailed
documentation, such as a consent form on which the site is handwritten or circled, tends
to be more reliable.
Here, the CVS record contains printed information regarding the patient, the
vaccine, and the administrator of the vaccine. Ex. 1 at 1-2. But just nineteen (19) days
later, in his complaint to the pharmacy board, Petitioner recalled that the pharmacist pre-
printed the CVS record before a technician actually administered the vaccine, outside of
the pharmacist’s supervision. Ex. 11 at 1. This complaint is roughly contemporaneous to
the events described. While not a medical record, the complaint was supplied to a medical
licensing board in the interests of documenting Petitioner’s own injury as well as
preventing similar injuries to other individuals. The complaint therefore carries some
indicia of reliability, and it is specific reason to doubt the CVS record’s accuracy about the
facts surrounding the vaccine’s administration.
Respondent avers that the complaint “does not specify whether he received the flu
vaccination in his right or left arm, but only states that he developed left arm pain after
receiving the flu vaccination.” Response at 7. But Petitioner correctly notes in response
that this argument “ignores the overall content and context of the document.” Reply at 6.
Respondent also suggests that any responses from CVS and/or the individuals involved
“could shed further light on Petitioner’s claim.” Response at n. 1. However, Petitioner filed
his copy of his complaint over a year ago, in April 2022, and Respondent has had ample
opportunity to request any additional information. It is not apparent that Petitioner would
have access to any additional proceedings conducted by the state pharmacy board – or
that those would be particularly probative in this case.
The overall tenor of the medical records support Petitioner’s situs argument.
Starting just sixteen (16) days after vaccination, Petitioner consistently complained of left-
shoulder pain, and described a vaccine administration occurring higher than normal. The
earliest medical records do not expressly state that the administration was on the same
side as his pain – but that is a logical reading of the records, and at least the first two
encounters, Petitioner and his medical providers were not aware of the CVS record that
indicated a differing site. Later medical records are even more explicit. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at
8 (“flu vaccination… was delivered directly into his left shoulder joint”). These medical
records warrant consideration even when they simply memorialize Petitioner’s own
report, which was given in the interest of accurate diagnosis and treatment.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/23 Page 8 of 8
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence supporting a left arm site of vaccine administration. Thus, Petitioner’s Motion
(ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
V. Scheduling Order
In the February 2023 informal communications which prompted this fact ruling,
Respondent indicated that he had completed a medical review of this case.
Accordingly, by Friday, August 11, 2023, Respondent shall file a status report
indicating his tentative position. If Respondent wishes to discuss either settlement or
damages, the status report shall reflect the date by which Respondent responded, or
intends to respond, to Petitioner's previously-submitted demand. If Respondent wishes to
file his report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c), the status report shall propose a deadline
for doing so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00538-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/11/2023) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. (ypb). Modified on 9/11/2023 to attach PDF (ypb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0538V
G. MATTHEW KOSMA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 11, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, G. Matthew Kosma 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine’s administration
on February 15, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 28, 2023, I issued Findings of Fact concluding that the evidence
preponderantly demonstrates that Petitioner’s vaccination was administered in his left
arm as alleged. Findings of Fact, ECF No. 28.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must
be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,
and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet.
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or
other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon
review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public
access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 2
On August 11, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, in which he states: “In
light of [the undersigned’s] fact ruling, and the medical record evidence submitted in this
case, DICP has concluded that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine
Injury Table.” Rule 4(c) Report at 5-6 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), 100.3(c)(10); Section
(c)(11)(D)(i). Therefore, “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to
appeal the Findings of Fact, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all
legal requisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6 (citing Section 13). Respondent
therefore requests a determination on the issue of entitlement in the case based on the
record as it now stands. 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-00538-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-14
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/12/2023) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/14/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0538V
G. MATTHEW KOSMA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 12, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, G. Matthew Kosma 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine’s administration
on February 15, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 11, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On October 3, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/14/23 Page 2 of 5
proffered award. Id. at 2. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled
to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $65,000.00 (for 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-00538-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/14/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
G. MATTHEW KOSMA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-538V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, G. Matthew Kosma (“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”), alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine on February 15, 2020. Petition at 1, 3. On August 11, 2023, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special
Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner received the subject influenza vaccine
in his left arm, 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.
30. That same day, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that
petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for his shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”).1 ECF No. 31.
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

Case 1:21-vv-00538-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/14/23 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $65,000.00 in pain and suffering.
This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $65,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments
a. Lump sum payment to petitioner, G. Matthew Kosma: $65,000.00
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
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s August 11, 2023, entitlement decision.
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-00538-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/14/23 Page 5 of 5
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS
MADELYN E. WEEKS
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) 305-3262
madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov
Dated: October 3, 2023
3