VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00555
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00555
Petitioner: Claudia Langmaid
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-04-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-24
Condition: left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 99786

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 11, 2021, Claudia Langmaid filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on October 24, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially contested whether the petitioner met the program's six-month severity requirement for the injury. The public decision does not detail the petitioner's counsel or the respondent's counsel by name in this section, but the ruling on entitlement was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The medical records indicated that Ms. Langmaid experienced left shoulder pain starting six days after the vaccination. Initial evaluations noted tenderness and impingement tests, with a diagnosis of subacromial bursitis. She received steroid injections and was prescribed anti-inflammatory medication. Despite some temporary relief, her pain persisted, and an MRI revealed bursitis without rotator cuff abnormality. She underwent physical therapy, but it was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a fourteen-month gap in treatment. During this gap, she received another flu vaccine in the same arm. She returned to medical care in May 2021, reporting persistent pain and limitations. Further imaging showed minimal bursitis and a possible small labral tear, along with a type II acromion. In November 2021, she underwent arthroscopic surgery, including acromioplasty and rotator cuff debridement. Following surgery and post-operative physical therapy, her condition improved. Chief Special Master Corcoran ruled on September 16, 2024, that Ms. Langmaid's SIRVA met the six-month severity requirement and other criteria for a Table SIRVA injury, finding her entitled to compensation. The case then proceeded to the damages phase. On April 28, 2025, a decision was issued based on a stipulation between the parties. Ms. Langmaid was awarded a total of $99,786.48, consisting of $95,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,786.48 for past unreimbursable expenses. The award was to be paid as a lump sum via ACH deposit to her counsel's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Claudia Langmaid, age 50, received an influenza vaccine on October 24, 2019. She alleged a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The primary disputed issue was whether the injury met the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's six-month severity requirement. Medical records documented left shoulder pain, reduced range of motion, and bursitis starting six days post-vaccination. Treatment included NSAIDs, two steroid injections, and physical therapy, with temporary relief. A fourteen-month gap in treatment occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the gap, the Special Master found preponderant evidence that the injury persisted for over six months, leading to arthroscopic surgery in November 2021. Petitioner was found entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA injury. On April 28, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded Petitioner $99,786.48, comprising $95,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,786.48 for past unreimbursable expenses, based on a stipulation between Petitioner (Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP) and Respondent (represented by Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00555-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-17
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/16/2024) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement, Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0555V
CLAUDIA LANGMAID, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 16, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Claudia Langmaid 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 left-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) in connection with an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on October 24, 2019. Petition (ECF No. 1); see also Amended Petition filed Sept. 6, 2022
(ECF No. 19). The parties dispute whether the “severity requirement” (an element of all
Program claims) is met. For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner likely
suffered her left shoulder injury and its residual effects for more than six months.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED.
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-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 2 of 11
I also find that she has satisfied all other requirements for a compensable Table
SIRVA injury, and she is thus entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed a signed statement as Ex. 1 (ECF No. 1-4),3 and medical records
as Exs. 3 – 10 (ECF Nos. 10, 16, 20), which were incorporated in a September 6, 2022,
Amended Petition (ECF No. 19). The claim was assigned to the “Special Processing Unit”
(OSM’s adjudicatory system for expedited resolution) (ECF No. 13). Respondent was
opposed to any exploration of settlement, however, and filed his Rule 4(c) Report, in
which he challenged Petitioner’s severity showing, on May 12, 2023 (ECF No. 29).
Both parties were afforded a final opportunity to file briefs and any additional
evidence they wished to have considered in my adjudication of the duration of Petitioner’s
alleged injury. Scheduling Order filed May 17, 2023 (ECF No. 30); Petitioner’s Ex. 11 and
Motion for a Ruling on the Record filed July 6, 2023 (ECF Nos. 31, 32); Response filed
Aug. 23, 2023 (ECF No. 33); Reply filed Sept. 7, 2023 (ECF No. 34). The matter is now
ripe for adjudication.
II. 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. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
3 The statement was not notarized or signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 3 of 11
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl.
381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies
between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s
failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant
time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything reported to her
or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4)
a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of
Health & 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (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 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).
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 § 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).
A potential petitioner must demonstrate that he or she “suffered the residual effects
or complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more
than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)4; see also
Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the
“potential petitioner” must not only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional
threshold, by “submitting supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that
4 Section 11(c)(1)(D) presents two alternative grounds for eligibility to compensation if a petitioner does not
meet the six months threshold: (ii) death from the vaccine, and (iii) inpatient hospitalization and surgical
intervention. Neither alternative is alleged or implicated in this claim.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 4 of 11
a special master has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case”), aff’d, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the
availability of the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from
taking a vaccine.” H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2313–1, 2313–373, cited in Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
III. Evidence
I have reviewed all submitted evidence including all medical records and affidavits,
as well as the Petition, the Rule 4(c) Report, and both parties’ briefing. The following
section focuses on the evidence most relevant to the disputed criterion (severity).
Petitioner was born in 1969. She saw an established primary care provider (“PCP”)
on an infrequent basis. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 11 – 12 (encounter summary). In January 2019,
she was briefly evaluated for injuries to her right dominant shoulder, sustained while
working as a horseback riding instructor. Ex. 5 at 19 – 22, 42, 85 – 93; but see Ex. 4 at
18 –28 (subsequent primary care records not referencing this injury).5 The parties agree
that Petitioner had no history of pain or dysfunction in her left shoulder, and that her
medical history is “non-contributory.” Response at 2.
On October 24, 2019, Petitioner received the at-issue flu vaccine in her left deltoid,
at her PCP’s office in Pennsylvania. Ex. 4 at 18 – 22; Ex. 9 at 2.
Six (6) days later (October 30, 2019), Petitioner returned to her PCP, with a chief
complaint of left shoulder pain lasting for six days. Ex. 4 at 20. An exam found normal
range of motion (“ROM”), normal strength, positive impingement tests, and tenderness
on the lateral shoulder inferior of the lateral aspect of the acromion. Id. at 17. The PCP
believed that “the flu shot was administered more superiorly than usual[…] just inferior to
the lateral acromion, so I suspect may have irritated the subacromial bursa.” Id. He initially
recommended rest and NSAIDs. Id.
5 Accord Rule 4(c) Report at 2; Response at 2 (stating that Petitioner had a “non-contributory medical
history”).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 5 of 11
On November 5, 2019, Petitioner obtained an orthopedist’s6 initial evaluation of
her post-vaccination left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 17. Her complaint was:
Intermittent sharp anterior and lateral R shoulder pain since 10/24/19, shot
got a flu shot that day and believes it was given higher than usual. Seemed
to be improving, but then worsened again this weekend. – Swelling or
redness, – popping, click, catching, grinding. Good ROM. Diff w/ raising arm
to overhead, reaching behind back, carrying weight, lifting away from body,
sleeping. No previous tx. Ibuprofen pm.
Id. An exam found good ROM, but positive impingement signs. Id. at 18. X-ray imaging
was consistent with a type III acromion, mild osteoarthritis in the AC joint, and no
glenohumeral joint (“GH”) abnormalities. Id. The orthopedist’s initial assessment was a
left rotator cuff tendinopathy and bursitis. Id. He administered a subacromial steroid
injection, and recommended rest and ice. Id.
At an orthopedics follow-up four weeks later, on December 3, 2019, Petitioner
reported that the steroid injection had relieved her left shoulder pain for one week, then
her pain worsened again. Ex. 5 at 15. The pain also seemed to improve with rest, but
then worsens again with activity. Id. The pain was currently at the same level it was at the
last visit. Id. The orthopedist ordered an MRI of the left shoulder. Id. The December 6,
2019, MRI report’s conclusions were: “1. Large subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. 2. No
evidence of osseous injury or rotator cuff abnormality. The rotator cuff tendons are intact.
No muscle edema or atrophy.” Ex. 7 at 21. Upon reviewing the MRI findings on December
10, 2019, the orthopedist changed his assessment to bursitis, for which he prescribed
Vimovo. Ex. 5 at 12 – 13.7
Next, at a January 10, 2020, annual primary care appointment, Petitioner
complained that her left shoulder injury was “not getting better” and she could not sleep
on her left side. Ex. 4 at 13. The PCP recommended continuing NSAIDs and following up
with her orthopedist. Id. at 14 – 15.
At the next orthopedics appointment on February 7, 2020, Petitioner complained
that her left shoulder pain had not resolved despite taking ibuprofen and Vimovo. Ex. 5 at
6 Petitioner had previously seen this orthopedist for her earlier right shoulder injury. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 21 –
22.
7 Vimovo is an anti-inflammatory arthritis medication containing naproxen and esomepazole magnesium.
Rule 4(c) Report at 5.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 6 of 11
10. The orthopedist maintained the assessment of bursitis, administered a second steroid
injection, and for the first time, discussed the potential of arthroscopic surgery. Id.8
On March 3, 2020, Petitioner reported that her left shoulder was improved after the
most recent injection, but still painful with certain motions. Ex. 5 at 8. The orthopedist
referred to a physical therapist (“PT”) within his practice. Id. at 7, 9.
At the PT initial evaluation on March 9, 2020, Petitioner rated her left shoulder pain
as currently at 1 – 2/10 but rising to 5/10 and even 8/10 “on occasion.” Ex. 6 at 39. She
recounted that since receiving a vaccination in her left shoulder that was “placed wrong”
on October 24, 2019, she had been experiencing “bursitis that has been flaring on and
off,” despite two cortisone injections and rest. Id. at 39 – 40. She struggled with sleeping
on the left side and using the left arm for activities including yoga and dog walking. Id. at
40. She also would “be starting a position in the summer working with horses.” Id.
(emphasis added). On exam, the left shoulder had decreased ROM (in active and passive
flexion, abduction, external and internal rotation, and extension). Id. There was also
slightly decreased strength, and scapular instability. Id. at 40 – 42. Skilled therapy was
planned twice a week for six weeks. Id. at 42 – 43. With adherence to the formal PT
sessions, it was expected that Petitioner would be able to transition to an independent
fitness program, resume sleeping on her left side, and reach and lift with her left shoulder
by April 20, 2020. Id.
However, Petitioner attended just one formal PT session on March 11, 2020. Ex.
6 at 38. She was “confident” performing home exercises, but she had ongoing limitations
in ROM, strength, and scapular stability. Id. Then on March 18, 2020, the PT practice
noted that Petitioner was “on hold due to Coronavirus.” Id. at 37.
For the next fourteen (14) months, Petitioner did not see any medical provider
regarding her left shoulder or any other subjects. But on September 26, 2020, she was
recorded as receiving another flu vaccine in her at-issue left arm. Ex. 4 at 71 (CVS
computerized record, contained within the PCP records).
8 This February 7, 2020, appointment record provides that Petitioner also complained of “intermittent later
L elbow pain recently.” Ex. 5 at 10. However, the orthopedist did not examine, assess, or treat the elbow
on that date. I did not find any other evidence to support that Petitioner’s post-vaccination injury was not
limited to the shoulder. Moreover, Respondent did not raise that argument. Accordingly, this complaint of
elbow pain does not foreclose Petitioner from establishing a Table SIRVA claim (and it obviously cannot be
included in any damages demand for the same). For the same reasons, Petitioner’s complaint of acute left
knee pain that was assessed as a lateral meniscus tear, see Ex. 5 at 8 – 11, is also distinguishable from
the SIRVA claim.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 7 of 11
Next on May 4, 2021, Petitioner returned to her same orthopedist, for reevaluation
of her left shoulder. Ex. 6 at 10. She reported doing two PT sessions, then having to stop
due to the Pandemic. Id. The pain was “improving but still bothersome… intermittent [and]
deep,” and associated with many of the same activities as before (e.g., reaching behind
her back, carry weight, lifting away from her body). Id. She was still taking ibuprofen and
naproxen as needed. Id. The orthopedist recorded similar exam findings, the same
assessment of bursitis, and recommended returning to PT. Id. at 11.
At a May 14, 2021, reevaluation with the same physical therapist, Petitioner
reported her left shoulder pain as currently at 3/10 and at worst 7/10. Ex. 6 at 13. She
reported the injury had been present since the October 2019 vaccination, but she had not
sought treatment during the Pandemic. Id. On exam, the left shoulder had normal flexion
and abduction but painful, slightly decreased external and internal rotation. Id. at 14.
There was also decreased strength, scapular instability, and decreased glenohumeral
(“GH”) joint capsule mobility. Id. at 14 – 15. Petitioner attended ten (10) formal PT
sessions through June 11, 2021. Id. at 16 – 24.
A June 25, 2021, MRI of the left shoulder primarily found “minimal subacromial
subdeltoid bursitis, decreased from the prior study.” Ex. 7 at 8. There was also a
“questionable small posterior labral tear, similar appearance to prior study,” and a type II
acromion. Id. The orthopedist opined that this “anterior lateral down sloping acromion
[was] causing impingement,” and Petitioner opted for surgical intervention. Ex. 7 at 6 – 7;
see also Ex. 8 at 16 – 17.
On November 10, 2021, the orthopedist recorded the following indication for
surgery: “Chronic left shoulder pain aggravated by lifting and reaching activities for the
past several years. Because of continued pain, a repeat MRI was performed which did
reveal a possible tear of the rotator cuff with significant bursitis as well as a down-sloping
acromion causing impingement.” Ex. 8 at 24. The orthopedist then performed an
arthroscopic acromioplasty and rotator cuff debridement, which included visualization of
“moderate” subacromial bursitis, and the resection of bursal tissue. Id. at 24 – 25.
Petitioner was instructed to wear a sling and perform home exercises each day. Id. at 25.
By the first post-operative orthopedics evaluation on November 18, 2021,
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and ROM were improving, and she was authorized to stop
wearing the sling. Ex. 8 at 13 – 14. She reported receiving shingles and COVID-19
booster vaccines in her left arm, at the next orthopedics follow-up on December 14, 2021.
Id. at 11 – 12. After attending 18 PT sessions between December 29, 2021, and March
17, 2022, Petitioner achieved good progress with her left shoulder ROM, strength, and
7

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 8 of 11
stability, and she was discharged with a HEP. Id. at 30. There are no further medical
records in evidence.
I have reviewed Petitioner’s October 6, 2020, email to an intake coordinator at her
counsel’s firm, which states in full: “I haven’t seen him sinch March when he ordered the
PT but I still haven’t gone through full PT due to Covid. Should I try to do that first before
I see the orthopedic doctor? PT gave me exercises for home back in the spring, but they
haven’t really helped.” Ex. 11 at 1.
Finally, Petitioner states plainly and without elaboration that she has “suffered the
residual effects or complications of these left shoulder injuries for more than six (6)
months, which were caused in fact by the flu vaccine.” Ex. 1 at ¶ 4. But her “understanding
that [this statement] will be filed in connection with” her Vaccine Program petition, id.,
which is not equivalent to a statement sworn under penalty of perjury, or an affidavit.
IV. Analysis
The only disputed issue is whether Petitioner’s left shoulder injury documented
shortly after the October 24, 2019, flu vaccine, and its residual effects, persisted for over
six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D) (statutory six-month requirement).
Respondent’s challenge to this requirement is not unreasonable, given the facts.
Petitioner’s injury was only documented for about four and one-half months post-
vaccination, followed by a fourteen (14) month gap. Rule 4(c) Report at 7. And other than
noting the fact that the gap began around the time of the start of the Pandemic (a time
when many individuals were reasonably reluctant to seek non-emergency medical care)9,
Petitioner also has not submitted any case-specific non-medical evidence that might help
to “fill in” this gap. Her later informal statements are entitled to less weight, and her briefing
does not grapple with certain arguments raised by Respondent (e.g., the potential that
Petitioner continued to work with horses, that she apparently received another vaccination
in her allegedly injured left shoulder during the treatment gap, and that her post-gap injury
appeared to be different). Therefore, Petitioner’s additional submissions have not
particularly helped my adjudication of the severity issue.
9 The Pandemic has been repeatedly recognized in Program cases as a potentially valid explanation for
treatment gaps, particularly those occurring in 2020 and early 2021. See, e.g., Miller v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 20-1900V, 2023 WL 1468491 at *5 - 6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 29, 2022); Kostka v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0418V, 2024 WL 2863526, at *4 – 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 2,
2024); Gates v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0511V, 2024 WL 2874626, at *5 – 6 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 6, 2024); Tompkins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 210513V, 2024 WL 3688494, at *5
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 28, 2024).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 9 of 11
However, the above medical records reflect that Petitioner regularly sought
treatment for left shoulder pain that was mild to moderate, and assessed primarily as
bursitis. That injury was temporarily relieved by rest, over-the-counter and prescription
NSAIDs, and two steroid injections that occurred on November 5, 2019, and February 7,
2020. The temporary relief from those measures is consistent with Petitioner’s
characterization that her bursitis flared on and off.
In addition, Petitioner’s left shoulder pain, plus objectively reduced ROM, were
documented for nearly five months post-vaccination. And by March 2020, it is not evident
she had likely recovered. Thus, her orthopedist and physical therapist had recommended
at least one month of skilled therapy to improve her condition. But her PT was instead put
in hold, because of the Pandemic’s emergence. Discontinuation of medical care does not
necessarily mean an injury has resolved. Reply at 5, citing Herren v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
And although this case’s 14-month treatment gap was lengthy, it was not inconsistent
with the mild to moderate nature of the injury. Nor was the gap punctuated by medical
treatment for any other complaints, or any evidence that Petitioner’s left shoulder had
actually recovered.
Respondent suggests a few things about what occurred during the gap that he
deems relevant to severity. For example, he raises the possibility that Petitioner worked
as a horseback riding instructor during the treatment gap (suggesting therefore that her
shoulder pain was not limiting her activities). Response at 8, 9. But while Petitioner did
not respond to this argument, the medical records reflect that Petitioner merely
anticipated to start this job in the summer of 2020, Ex. 6 at 40. In addition, Respondent
posits that Petitioner would not have received an additional flu vaccine in her left arm on
September 26, 2020, if she had an ongoing left shoulder injury at that time. Response at
8. But Petitioner was also later documented as receiving vaccines in her left arm while
she was still recovering from arthroscopic surgery. Ex. 8 at 11.
Overall, then, there is preponderant evidence within the medical records that
Petitioner’s post-vaccination left shoulder injury persisted for over six months and beyond,
through to her arthroscopic surgery and post-operative PT. Whether Petitioner’s issues
after the lengthy gap are also related is far less clear. On the one hand, Petitioner – and
her medical providers - consistently related all of her left shoulder symptoms back to the
vaccine, without any indication of a full recovery, recurrence, or new injury.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 10 of 11
In addition, Respondent’s suggestion that Petitioner’s description of the injury
changed, see Response at 8, is not supported by my review of the records.10 The 2021
records again reflect objective left shoulder pain and decreased ROM, and the same
assessment of bursitis – which was remedied during the November 2021 surgery. And
the contention that Petitioner’s “MRI findings were substantially different, revealing an
anatomical source of impingement per her orthopedist,” flies against the fact that the
“anatomical source” identified was the type II acromion, which would have been present
throughout Petitioner’s life, and does not likely represent a new, intervening factor that
would prevents a severity determination in her favor.11
Nevertheless, the gap is substantial – and Petitioner’s condition was not
particularly severe as of February – March 2020. My finding of severity thus only deems
that requirement met; I am not also finding it preponderantly established that all of
Petitioner’s complaints recorded after May 2021 are necessarily associated (although as
noted some evidence supports that conclusion). Both parties must take this into account
in considering damages to be awarded.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent has stated no further objections to compensation, and I find Petitioner
has otherwise satisfied all criteria for a Table SIRVA injury following receipt of the flu
vaccine. There is no evidence of prior left shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction or
an alternative cause for Petitioner's symptoms. She experienced pain within 48 hours of
vaccination, and she exhibited pain and limitations in ROM solely in her left, injured
shoulder. As I have determined in this ruling, the record supports a finding that Petitioner
suffered the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months. See Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement). Additionally, she
received a seasonal flu vaccine within the United States, see Section 11(c)(1)(A)
(requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration
within the United States or its territories). And there is no evidence that Petitioner has
10 Compare Ex. 5 at 17 (November 2019 orthopedics record of “– popping, click, catching, grinding”); and
Ex. 6 at 10 (May 2021 orthopedics record with the same notation). Moreover, the “–“ seems to indicate the
patient’s denial of such symptoms. The case evidence over does not support that Ms. Langmaid’s left
shoulder ever displayed popping, clicking, catching, or grinding.
11 The acromion is the lateral extension of the spine of the scapula, projecting over the shoulder joint and
forming the highest point of the shoulder. Acromion, Dorland's Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=708&searchterm=acromion (last visited Sept. 13,
2024). See also, e.g., Stiller v. Sec’y of Hum. Servs., No. 20-1841V, 2023 WL 8539387 at * 9 – 11, and n.
6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2023) (in which Special Master Horner noted Respondent’s argument that
a Type II acromion “is an anatomic variant that increases the risk” of shoulder injuries, but nonetheless
found that the Petitioner has established a Table SIRVA).
10

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/17/24 Page 11 of 11
collected a civil award for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a left-sided SIRVA following administration
of the flu vaccine on October 24, 2019.
The case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are encouraged to
pursue informal resolution of an appropriate damages award. If the parties determine that
informal resolution is not possible, they should be prepared to promptly brief the
appropriate award of damages.
By no later than Wednesday, October 16, 2024, Petitioner shall file a Status
Report updating on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages. The
status report shall specifically state the date by which Petitioner provided, or intends to
provide, a demand for damages to Respondent.12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12 Petitioner previously reported that the case does not involve a workers’ compensation claim or a
Medicaid lien. Scheduling Order filed Aug. 8, 2022, at 1 (memorializing status conference).
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00555-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/26/2025) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0555V
CLAUDIA LANGMAID, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 26, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Claudia Langmaid 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 she suffered a left-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) in connection with an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on October 24, 2019. Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 16, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On March 26, 2025, Respondent filed a Proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with
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-00555-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 5
the 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, Petitioner is awarded a lump
sum of $99,786.48 (representing $95,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $4,786.48
for past unreimbursable expenses) to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Proffer
at 2. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a). Id.
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-00555-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/28/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
CLAUDIA LANGMAID, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-555V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 11, 2021, Claudia Langmaid (“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. The petition alleges that as a result of receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 24, 2019, petitioner suffered from a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). See Petition at Preamble. On May 12, 2023,
respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report asserting that petitioner failed to meet the Act’s severity
requirement. ECF No. 29. After the parties briefed entitlement, Chief Special Master Corcoran
issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation on September 16,
2024. ECF No. 36.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $95,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/28/25 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $4,786.48. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
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 Chief Special Master Corcoran’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $99,786.48, to
be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Claudia Langmaid: $99,786.48
Respectfully submitted,
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00555-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/28/25 Page 5 of 5
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
JULIA M. COLLISON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Meghan R. Murphy
MEGHAN R. MURPHY
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) 616-4264
meghan.r.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: March 26, 2025
3