VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00544
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00544
Petitioner: Elaine Labor
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-02-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-19
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 9730

AI-assisted case summary:
Elaine Labor filed her petition on January 11, 2021, and filed an amended petition on December 15, 2021 with additional detail and medical-record citations. She alleged that an influenza vaccine administered in her left shoulder on or about October 19, 2018 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Labor was represented by Laura Levenberg of Muller Brazil, LLP.

The case had a contested procedural history before settlement. On July 8, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued findings of fact and conclusions of law dismissing Labor's Table claim. Respondent also denied that Labor suffered from SIRVA, denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that any current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.

The public stipulation does not describe Labor's first shoulder symptom, onset interval, physical findings, imaging, injections, therapy, work limitations, or daily-life effects. It also does not explain the July 2024 fact findings in detail. What the available record shows is that Labor continued to pursue a vaccine-related left shoulder claim after the Table theory was dismissed, and the parties resolved the remaining disputed claim by stipulation.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it on February 3, 2025. Labor received $9,730.00 in a check payable to her, representing all Vaccine Act damages available under Section 15(a).

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine in left shoulder on or about October 19, 2018 allegedly causing left SIRVA/shoulder injury. COMPENSATED by stipulation after July 8, 2024 findings dismissed the Table claim. Respondent denied SIRVA, vaccine causation, any other injury, and current vaccine-caused sequela. Public stipulation provides no onset, treatment, imaging, therapy, experts, or mechanism and does not detail the fact findings. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, decision February 3, 2025. Award $9,730.00 check payable to petitioner. Petition filed January 11, 2021; amended petition December 15, 2021. Attorney: Laura Levenberg.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00544-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-13
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/08/2024) regarding 37 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0544V
ELAINE LABOR,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 8, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DISMISSAL OF TABLE CLAIM1
On January 11, 2021, Elaine Labor filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Almost one year later, she filed an amended petition, containing additional
detail and medical records citations. ECF No. 15. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a
left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury,
after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 19, 2018. Amended Petition at 1,
¶¶ 2, 16.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
conclusion that Petitioner’s pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, but that
her pain was not limited to her left shoulder – meaning Petitioner cannot establish a Table
SIRVA.3 Any causation-in-fact version of the claim will only succeed if Petitioner can
provide preponderant evidence of a vaccine-caused injury consistent with the symptom
location determined in this Ruling. See Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418
F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (setting out the three-pronged test which must be met
to establish causation).
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, which set forth only the basic elements of her claim, Ms.
Labor filed a signed declaration4 from her counsel (labeled Exhibit 1) acknowledging the
Petition had been filed without medical records (in an effort to get the case started before
the then-proposed removal of SIRVA from the Vaccine Injury Table).5 Exhibit 1 at ¶ 1.
Over the subsequent year, Petitioner filed a signed declaration,6 an amended petition,
and the medical records required by the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 3-6, filed June 14, 2021,
ECF No. 9; Exhibits 7-8, filed July 19, 2021, ECF Nos. 11, 13; Amended Petition, filed
Dec. 15, 2021, ECF No. 15. On December 27, 2021, the case was activated and assigned
to the “Special Processing Unit” (the “SPU” - OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution of
cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 16.
On May 16, 2022, Petitioner conveyed her demand and supporting documentation
to Respondent. Status Report, filed June 16, 2022, ECF No. 21. Approximately one month
later, she filed updated medical records. Exhibit 9, filed July 11, 2022, ECF No. 22.
Because the case had been pending in SPU for more than a year without the
Government’s reaction to its viability, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record,
asserting she had satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA plus the Vaccine Act’s
severity requirement. Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”), filed Jan.
4, 2023, at 5-8, ECF No. 26. After requesting additional time to file his response on several
3 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) & (iii) (2017) (the second and third criterion listed in the Qualifications and
Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) related to pain onset and symptom location).
4 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 1.
5 On July 20, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed the removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Proposed Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43794 (July 20, 2020). On April 22, 2021, the final rule removing
SIRVA from the Vaccine Table was rescinded. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions
to the Vaccine Injury Table, Withdrawal of Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 21209 (Apr. 22, 2021).
6 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 7.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 3 of 9
occasions, Respondent stated that he was willing to engage in settlement discussions.
Status Report, filed Feb. 20, 2023, ECF No. 30. The parties informed me they had
reached an impasse in their settlement discussions 45 days later. Status Report, filed
Apr. 6, 2023, ECF No. 34.
On May 23, 2023, Respondent filed his response, opposing entitlement.
Respondent’s Response to Motion, ECF No. 35. He argues that Petitioner has failed to
satisfy two of the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA: 1) pain onset within 48 hours of
vaccination and 2) pain and ROM limited to the injured shoulder. Id. at 9-10; see 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10)(ii)-(iii). In her reply, filed one week later, Petitioner countered Respondent’s
arguments. Petitioner’s Reply to Response (“Reply”), ECF No. 36.
II. Table SIRVA Claim
A. Legal Standards
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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 4 of 9
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational)
B. Finding of Fact
I make these findings, related to onset and symptom location, after a complete
review of the record to include all medical records, affidavits or declarations, and
additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
4

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 5 of 9
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered from hypertension; hypothyroidism;
epilepsy; insomnia; back, bilateral knee, foot, and jaw pain; arthritis in her
knees; and a compression fracture of the thoracic vertebra. E.g., Exhibit 4
at 11; Exhibit 6 at 712. She previously had undergone a total left knee
replacement in 2016, and continued to have issues with that knee, as well
as her right knee. Exhibit 5 at 33-67; Exhibit 6 at 712.
• On October 19, 2018, Petitioner (66 years old) received the flu vaccine
intramuscularly in her left arm during an appointment with her primary care
provider (“PCP”). Exhibit 3.
• The morning of October 26, 2018, Petitioner called her PCP, stating that
she “had her flu shot last Friday and she said she [wa]s still feeling pain in
her arm and sometimes on her neck.” Exhibit 6 at 702. Although she stated
that she didn’t want to come in person, she was informed that she needed
to be evaluated. Id.
• At that visit during the afternoon of October 26th, Petitioner complained of
“bilateral upper arm pain and shoulder/neck soreness since approx 10/22,”
adding that she had “rec’d flu vaccination 10/19.” Exhibit 6 at 684. Noting
that Petitioner’s CPK7 was “very mildly elevated,” the nurse practitioner
assessed Petitioner with muscle soreness. Exhibit 6 at 688. She instructed
Petitioner to apply ice and heat, to provide an update on her condition next
week, and to go to the emergency room if she experienced any acute
change. Id.
• Three days later, on October 29, 2018, Petitioner returned to her PCP,
again complaining of “pain in [her] bilateral arms and shoulders since getting
[the] Flu Vaccination ten days ago.” Exhibit 6 at 660. She reported being
“unable to reach above her head.” Id. Upon examination, she exhibited
reduced range of motion (“ROM”) in both shoulders, and testing revealed
elevated CPK. Id. at 665. The PCP assessed Petitioner as suffering from
muscle soreness and bilateral shoulder pain, stated that he suspected a
rotator cuff tear. He referred Petitioner to an orthopedist, and ordered x-
rays. Id. It appears that x-rays, which revealed mild degenerative changes,
were taken only of Petitioner’s left shoulder. Id. at 634.
7 CPK stands for creatine phosphokinase. MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 147 (16th ed. 2020). Creatine
phosphokinase or creatine kinase “is an activated enzyme of the transferase class that catalyzes the
phosphoryl of creatine by ATP to form phosphocreatine.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY
(“DORLAND’S”) at 429 (32th ed. 2012). Phosphocreatine “is an important storage form of high-energy
phosphate, the energy source for muscle contraction.” DORLAND’S at 1437.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 6 of 9
• At her next PCP appointment on November 12, 2018, Petitioner reported
that she “continue[d] to have pain in the left arm at the site of the Flu Vaccine
injection.” Exhibit 6 at 624. The PCP ordered a CT scan of her left arm. Id.
at 631.
• When she returned to her PCP approximately two weeks later, on
November 26, 2018, Petitioner again “complain[] of left shoulder/bilateral
shoulder soreness.” Exhibit 6 at 601. It was noted that the results of the CT
scan taken of her left arm were normal, except for mild degenerative
changes. Id. at 601, 606. Reiterating his assessment, that Petitioner was
suffering muscle soreness and bilateral shoulder pain, the PCP referred her
to an orthopedist. Id. at 606.
• On January 10, 2019, Petitioner was seen by her neurologist for a follow-
up of numbness in her right toes, her epilepsy, and a tremor that began two
years ago. Exhibit 6 at 1098. There is no mention of Petitioner’s shoulder
pain in the record from this visit. Id. at 1098 - 1106.
• The next day, Petitioner visited the orthopedic department of her PCP clinic
for evaluation. Exhibit 6 at 572-77. At this visit, she complained of “pain
affecting her left shoulder and arm,” that “occurred after receiving a flu shot
in this left arm.” Id. at 572. Stating that conservative measures “did not seem
to help her pain,” Petitioner reported experiencing “a fall when she tripped
on a step at home, landing with her arm outwards” thereafter, which
exacerbated her pain. Id. Diagnosed with sprain of the left rotator cuff
capsule, bursitis, impingement syndrome, and primary osteoarthritis,
Petitioner was administered a steroid injection and provided a home
exercise program (“HEP”). Id. at 576.
• Less than two months later, on March 4, 2019, Petitioner returned to the
orthopedic department for a reassessment of left shoulder pain. Exhibit 6 at
534. Reporting about four weeks of relief from the steroid injection and
improved ROM from her HEP, Petitioner stated that she “continues to have
pain on a daily basis.” Id. At Petitioner’s request, an MRI was ordered. Id.
at 538.
• Unable to obtain the ordered MRI due to her aneurysm clips, Petitioner
return to orthopedics on April 2, 2019. Exhibit 6 at 497. She also reported
that she had not been performing her HEP, and had sustained a recent
injury to her right foot and ankle. Id. The orthopedist administered a second
6

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 7 of 9
steroid injection and referred Petitioner to physical therapy (“PT”) for her left
shoulder, as well as her right foot and ankle. Id. at 500.
• On April 5, 2019, Petitioner visited her PCP for follow-up treatment of
campylobacter enteritis,8 dehydration, and a urinary tract infection
contracted while on a cruise. Exhibit 6 at 486.
• At her initial PT evaluation, performed on April 10, 2019, Petitioner reported
pain at a level of three to four and improvements in her ROM after the two
steroid injections. Exhibit 6 at 465.
• On May 23, 2019, Petitioner was discharged from PT after attending only
two sessions. Exhibit 6 at 448-49. It was noted that she had not attended
PT for four weeks. Id. at 449.
• During the subsequent six months, Petitioner visited her PCP and
neurologist on multiple occasions with no mention of left shoulder pain.
Exhibit 6 at 178-447, 1089-97.
• On December 4, 2019, Petitioner sought treatment again from her PCP,
reporting that “overall her shoulder is not as bad as it was previously,
[that][s]he has some improvement with range of motion, although she has
not regained full mobility, and [that] [s]he continues to have pain along the
anterior deltoid region with range of motion.” Exhibit 6 at 164. Petitioner
acknowledged that she did not complete the full session of PT. Id. She was
administered her third steroid injection. Id. at 167.
• In late December 2019, Petitioner sought treatment for continued symptoms
in her left foot, thought to be connected to her earlier left foot injury. Exhibit
6 at 149. She was diagnosed with a left foot sprain, swelling, and an acute
left fifth metatarsal shaft fracture. Id. at 152.
• On April 15, 2020, Petitioner tripped and fell on her right hand and wrist.
Exhibit 6 at 56-60. While treated for that injury, she reported that “her
shoulder technically [had]n’t bother[ed] her for several months.” Id.
Admitting that she had not been performing her HEP, Petitioner stated that
she continued to feel some sensitivity. Id.
8 Campylobacter enteritis is “an intestinal infection by a species of Campylobacter; characteristics include
diarrhea hat may be bloody, abdominal pain with cramps, and fever. The cause is usually ingestion of
contaminated food or water.” DORLAND’S at 624.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 8 of 9
• Petitioner next sought treatment for left shoulder pain on December 15,
2020. Exhibit 9 at 479. Characterizing her left shoulder pain as a
reoccurrence, she stated it had started approximately two weeks ago. Id.
Petitioner was administered a steroid injection and provided with a topical
Voltaren gel. Id. at 483-84.
• In her declaration, signed under penalty of perjury on July 19, 2021,
Petitioner addressed only the basic requirements of the Vaccine Act. Exhibit
7.
On five occasions during the three month post-vaccination period, Petitioner
complained of bilateral shoulder and neck pain that she attributed to her October 2018
vaccination. Exhibit 6 at 702, 684, 660, 624, 601. She consistently provided complaints
supportive of an immediate pain onset, stating that she was still having pain (id. at 702),
that her pain had begun since vaccination (id. at 660), and that she continued to have
pain (id. at 624). Although provided by Petitioner, these close-in-time representations
made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment are still afforded great weight.
Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528.
The only entry supportive of a later pain onset can be found in the record from
Petitioner’s afternoon visit to her PCP on November 26, 2018. At that visit, she reported
bilateral upper arm, shoulder, and neck pain since approximately October 22nd, placing
onset three days post-vaccination. Exhibit 6 at 684. Within this same record, it is correctly
noted that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 19th. Although the specificity of
this complaint, provided only seven days post-vaccination, would usually constituent
strong evidence of onset, the probative value of this entry is significantly undermined by
the inclusion of the qualifier “approx,” meaning approximately. Thus, it alone is not
sufficient to counter the compelling evidence offered by multiple entries, also provided
close in time, that support a more immediate pain onset.
This same analysis applies to the multiple entries provided by Petitioner within
three months of vaccination that include descriptions of pain in her neck and right
shoulder. Although I credit Petitioner’s argument – that the primary focus of the treatment
Petitioner received remained her left arm/shoulder (Motion at 5-6; Reply at 3-4) - that fact
does not distract from the premise that Petitioner suffered pain in these other areas as
well.
Accordingly, I find preponderant evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s left
shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, but also that she experienced pain in
locations other than her left shoulder. Thus, Petitioner’s Table claim is DISMISSED.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/13/24 Page 9 of 9
III. Potential for Off-Table Claim
A petitioner’s failure to establish a Table injury does not necessarily constitute the
end of a case under all circumstances, because she might well be able to establish a non-
Table claim for either causation-in-fact or significant aggravation. See Althen v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005); W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Loving v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (2009)).
Although she will need to provide evidence that accounts for symptoms she
experienced, it is possible that Petitioner may be able to prove that the flu vaccine caused
her symptoms or significantly aggravated her condition. And the three-day symptoms
onset is still close enough to vaccination to constitute an appropriate time frame.
However, Petitioner will need to provide this additional evidence to continue with her
claim.
Formal resolution of this issue will likely require further review and most likely the
retention of experts, which I am not inclined to authorize in the SPU. However, I will first
allow the parties an additional 30 days to determine if an informal resolution can be
reached. Thereafter, I will transfer the case out of SPU.
Conclusion
Petitioner has not established the onset of her left shoulder pain occurred within
48 hours of her receipt of the flu vaccine on October 19, 2018. Accordingly, her Table
SIRVA claim is dismissed.
Because Petitioner may prevail on an off-Table claim, the parties should make one
more attempt to reach an informal settlement in this case, before I reassign it out of SPU.
The parties shall file a joint status report indicating whether they believe an
informal settlement could be reached in this case and updating me on their current
efforts by no later than Friday, August 09, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00544-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-17
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/03/2025) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0544V
ELAINE LABOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 3, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 11, 2021, Elaine Labor filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Almost one year later, she filed an amended petition, containing additional
detail and medical records citations. ECF No. 15. Petitioner alleged that she suffered a
left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury,
after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 19, 2018. Amended Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2,
16; Stipulation at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleged that she received the vaccines in the
United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months,
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-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 2 of 7
and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a
result of her injury. Amended Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 12-14; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent
denies that [P]etitioner suffered from SIRVA; denies that the vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s
alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that [P]etitioner’s current condition
is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on February 3, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $9,730.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
ELAINE LABOR, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 2 I-544V
V. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________
)
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
1. Elaine Labor, petitioner, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (the "Vaccine Program").
The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of the
influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"),
42 C.F.R. § 10 0J(a).1
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder, on or about October 19, 20 I 8.
3. The vaccination was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. She further alleges that
she experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
1 On December 15, 2021, petitioner filed an amended petition containing additional detail and
medical records citations.

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 4 of 7
for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.
6. Respondent denies that petitioner suffered from SIRVA; denies that the vaccine
caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's
current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 2
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent with
the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2l(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$9,730.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
U.S.C. §300aa-15(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after
petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-2 l(a)(1 ), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before
the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this
petition.
10. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U .S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
2 On July 8, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a findings of fact and conclusions of law
ruling dismissing the Table claim.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 5 of 7
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or
State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §
1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation and any amounts awarded
pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
l 5(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award
for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be
used solely for petitioner's benefit as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. §§
300aa-l 5(a) and ( d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U .S.C. §§ 300aa-15(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in her
individual capacity, and on behalf of her heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns,
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release_, acquit and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting
from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on or about October 19,
2018, as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed January 11, 2021, and
in an amended petition filed December 15, 2021, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as
petition No. 21-544V.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 6 of 7
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties'
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or
any other injury or her current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the
Vaccine Injury Table.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4

Case 1:21-vv-00544-UNJ Document 52 Filed 03/17/25 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
1/
' ,!I
~
·-:,~f.1~ULd
ELAINE LABOR' ~
ATTORNEY OF RECORD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
FORP TITIO OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
' ~~~~~
I..:AURA LEVENBERG
Muller Brazil, LLP Deputy Director
715 Twining Road, Suite 208 Torts Branch
Dresher, PA 19025 U.S. Department of Justice
laura@mullerbrazil.com P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVlCES:
effrey S,
J Digitally signed by
Jeffrey S. Beach -S
Beach -S
Date:2025.01.0716:15:10
_ _____ -os·oo· for
CAPT Gl:-.ORGE REl:.D GRl~IES. MD. MPH COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Director, Division of Injury Assistant Director
Compensation Programs Torts Branch
Health Systems Bureau Civil Division
Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice
Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station
and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146
5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Tel: (202) 616-3644
Rockville, MD 20857 Email: colleen.hartley@usdoj.gov
02-/03/Wz./:::
Dated:
~
5