VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00596
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00596
Petitioner: Eric Ahlstrom
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2024-10-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-29
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 48663

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 12, 2021, Eric Ahlstrom filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 29, 2020. Mr. Ahlstrom, who was 39 years old at the time of vaccination, claimed that he experienced left shoulder pain and a limited range of motion, which he attributed to the vaccine. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially opposed compensation, arguing that Mr. Ahlstrom had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement. The respondent pointed to Mr. Ahlstrom's last physical therapy session on March 9, 2021, approximately five and a half months post-vaccination, as evidence that his symptoms had not persisted for the required duration. Mr. Ahlstrom contended that his symptoms continued for longer than six months, particularly when performing certain physical activities. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the medical records and Mr. Ahlstrom's declaration. The Special Master found that while Mr. Ahlstrom's condition improved, it had not fully resolved by March 9, 2021, and that his own declaration indicated continued symptoms beyond the six-month mark. The Special Master determined that Mr. Ahlstrom had satisfied the severity requirement and met all other criteria for a Table SIRVA injury, including no prior history of shoulder issues or alternative causes. On May 15, 2024, the Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Mr. Ahlstrom entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on September 17, 2024, the parties filed a proffer on the award of compensation. On October 18, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding Mr. Ahlstrom $48,663.78. This award comprised $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,163.78 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by Jonathan Joseph Svitak of Shannon Law Group, P.C., and respondent was represented by Jamica Marie Littles of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Eric Ahlstrom, a 39-year-old adult, filed a petition alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 29, 2020. The injury was listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Mr. Ahlstrom alleged that he experienced left shoulder pain and limited range of motion starting approximately three weeks after vaccination, on October 22, 2020. The primary dispute centered on the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement. Mr. Ahlstrom contended his symptoms persisted beyond six months, while the respondent argued the evidence did not support this. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Mr. Ahlstrom's medical records and declaration demonstrated that his SIRVA symptoms persisted for more than six months post-vaccination, satisfying the severity requirement. The Special Master also found that Mr. Ahlstrom met the other criteria for a Table SIRVA injury, including no prior history of shoulder issues or alternative causes. The respondent initially opposed compensation but later agreed to a stipulated award. On October 18, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Mr. Ahlstrom $48,663.78, consisting of $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,163.78 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by Jonathan Joseph Svitak, and respondent by Jamica Marie Littles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00596-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-17
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/15/2024) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0596V
ERIC AHLSTROM,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
Filed: May 15, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Eric Ahlstrom 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on September 29, 2020. Petition at 1, 1 ¶¶ 2, 13. Having filed the Petition before the
expiration of the six-month period post-vaccination required by the Act to establish
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 10
severity,3 Petitioner further alleged that he “sustained a left shoulder SIRVA injury which
w[ould] require treatment for a period of at least six months.” Id. at ¶ 13.
The parties dispute whether the “severity requirement” necessary for all Program
claims is met. For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner likely suffered the
residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months, and he has satisfied the other
requirements of a compensable Table SIRVA injury. Petitioner is thus entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
During the subsequent 20-month period after filing the Petition, Mr. Ahlstrom filed
the declaration4 and medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-5, ECF
Nos. 8, 11, 13, 20, 23; see Section 11(c). On March 13, 2022, I ordered Petitioner to file
additional medical records and other evidence to show the site of vaccination and to
establish that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. ECF
No. 18. On September 12, 2022, the case was activated and assigned to the “Special
Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution of cases deemed likely to
settle). ECF No. 25.
Almost one year later, on September 11, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c)
Report opposing compensation in this case. ECF No. 29. Emphasizing the progress made
by Petitioner’s last physical therapy (“PT”) on March 9, 2021, approximately five and one-
half months post-vaccination, Respondent insists Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient
evidence to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement. Id. at 6-7. He maintains that
the symptoms Petitioner described more than a year later, in May 2022, cannot be
connected to the vaccine he received in September 2020. Id. at 7.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
3 Petitioner likely filed the Petition, without medical records, due to the potential removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. 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). The proposed rule was finalized
six months later. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table,
Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 6249 (Jan. 21, 2021). Approximately one month later, the effective date for the
final rule was delayed. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Delay of Effective Date, 86 Fed. Reg. 10835 (Feb. 23, 2021) (delaying the effective date of the final
rule until April 23, 2021). 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).
4 These declarations were signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibits 7-
8.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 10
II. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset and Duration
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA
for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
requirement).
A. 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
3

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 4 of 10
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. Analysis
I make the severity finding 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:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered from common illnesses (sore throat)
and skin conditions requiring treatment by a dermatologist, underwent a
hernia repair, and experienced right wrist and knee pain from lifting weights.
Exhibit 2 at 67-80.
• On September 29, 2020, Petitioner (39-years old) received the flu vaccine
intramuscularly in his left deltoid administered by providers at Homeland
4

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 5 of 10
Health Specialists. Exhibit 4 at 2. In his declaration, Petitioner explained that
he received the flu vaccine at the college where he taught. Exhibit 3 at ¶ 5.
• Three weeks later, on October 22, 2020, Petitioner visited his primary care
provider (“PCP”), complaining of left shoulder pain for the past month.
Exhibit 2 at 65. He described normal soreness after receiving the flu shot,
but hardly being able to move his arm by the end of the day. He added that
he “[h]a[d] never had symptoms like th[at] before.” Id. After reviewing the x-
rays taken that day which revealed no abnormalities, the PCP assessed
Petitioner as suffering from acute left shoulder pain, prescribed pain
medication (Toradol5), ordered PT, and instructed Petitioner to continue to
apply ice and heat. Id. at 66.
• On November 10, 2020, Petitioner attended his first PT session. Exhibit 2
at 58-61. At this initial evaluation, Petitioner again attributed his shoulder
pain to the flu vaccine. Id. at 58. Reporting that his pain was decreasing, he
described no pain at rest, but sharp, aching, stabbing pain with activity.
Although his pain level could reach eight out of ten, Petitioner reported this
was only for a “short duration.” Id. The physical therapist listed several goals
with a target date of January 10, 2021. Id. at 60-61.
• Throughout November and December 2020, Petitioner attended seven PT
sessions. Exhibit 2 at 37-61. On December 29, 2020, he characterized his
condition as approximately 50 percent improved. Id. at 37. Petitioner
continued to report difficulty sleeping/laying on his left side and pain with
activity, primarily with pulling. Id. at 38. At that visit, it was noted that
Petitioner had not attend PT for 30 days. Id. Petitioner’s sixth PT session
occurred on December 1st. Id. at 41-44.
• On January 8, 2021, the physical therapist assessed Petitioner as making
good progress with mobility. Exhibit 2 at 31. Petitioner exhibited 143
degrees of active range of motion (“ROM”) and “minor pain with flexion.” Id.
However, the therapist noted Petitioner’s progress related to pain “has been
slow.” Id. Petitioner still reported pain as great as four to five, with a more
constant level of two. Id. Regarding Petitioner’s shoulder strength, the
therapist determined he required “[a]dditional strengthening required to
restore [normal] shoulder stability.” Id. at 32.
5 Toradol is a “trademark for preparations of ketorolac tromethamine.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL
DICTIONARY at 1940 (32th ed. 2012). Ketorolac tromethamine is “a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug
administered intramuscularly, intravenously, or orally for short term management of pain.” Id. at 984.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 6 of 10
• At PT sessions in January and February 2021, Petitioner continued to show
improvement, but also setbacks in response to activity. E.g., Exhibit 2 at 11
(increased pain after moving firewood). By his 16th PT session (on February
24, 2021), he stated that “his shoulder is generally good if he is not using it
for lifting.” Id. at 7. Petitioner also described “persistent pain with use of the
shoulder in overhead positions.” Id.
• On March 9, 2021, Petitioner was assessed as “ha[ving] made great
progress towards all goals.” Exhibit 2 at 5. However, he was instructed to
continue with his home exercise program. Id. 4-5. Petitioner described his
shoulder as “the best it has been for a long time,” reporting it was a “little
sore in the morning.” Id. at 4 (omitting quotation marks in original).
• In his declaration, signed on September 1, 2021, Petitioner asserted that he
continued to experience left should pain when performing physical activities
such as lifting a trash bag, carrying groceries, filling the wood box, and
blowing or shoveling snow. Exhibit 3 at ¶ 10. He asserted that his left
shoulder injury “caused [him] pain and impairment for a period lasting longer
than six months.” Id. at ¶ 12.
• On May 13, 2022 (now more than a year from the date of last treatment –
yet after the claim’s initiation), Petitioner returned to his PCP reporting
concerns related to left shoulder clicking. Exhibit 5 at 13. Noting that his
“[d]iscomfort [wa]s worse with increased weights, [e]ven 10 pounds,”
Petitioner maintained his symptoms were the same, albeit not worse, since
2020. Id. at 14. In another entry, also referencing his earlier vaccination but
stating it occurred in 2019, he reported that “certain parts of his shoulder . .
. is now causing clicking and mild discomfort.” Id. at 14. However, Petitioner
“denie[d] any significant pain or weakness.” Id. at 15. After reviewing x-rays
which showed “normal joint spaces, no fracture or other abnormalities,” the
PCP instructed Petitioner “to use her [sic] shoulder as tolerated,” and seek
a reevaluation if he developed pain, redness, or weakness. Id. at 16.
To satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement in this case, Petitioner must show
that he suffered symptoms of his alleged SIRVA beyond March 29, 2021 (assuming a
same day onset which the record preponderantly supports). The above medical entries
preponderantly suggest Petitioner suffered from pain, primarily with certain movement
and positioning, at least several weeks after his PT discharge on March 9, 2021 - thus
satisfying that severity requirement.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 7 of 10
Petitioner’s injury had improved, but not resolved, by March 9th, less than three
weeks before the six-month mark. Exhibit 2 at 4-5. Given the slow progress Petitioner
made while attending PT sessions in November 2020, through early March 2021, it is
unlikely that the injury resolved fully within the subsequent three weeks. The lack of
treatment, and therefore contemporaneously-created medical records during this three-
week period, does not prevent Petitioner from establishing six-month sequelae. And
Petitioner has provided a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury indicating that he
continued to have symptoms when performing certain tasks. Exhibit 3 at ¶ 10.
In Kirby, the Federal Circuit explained that its holding in Cucuras was limited to
“the unremarkable proposition that it is not erroneous to give greater weight to
contemporaneous medical records than to later, contradictory testimony,” but that this
principle should not be interpreted as a finding that “the medical records are
presumptively accurate and complete, . . . that when a person is ill, he reports all of his
problems to his doctor, who then faithfully records everything he is told.” Kirby, 997 F.3d
at 1382-83. In that case, the Circuit determined that the special master’s finding of six-
month sequela was not arbitrary or capricious, despite the lack of recorded symptoms
and the Kirby petitioner’s general statements of feeling fine or having no complaint. Id. at
1383.
Furthermore, Petitioner is not required to establish that he was still experiencing
symptoms related to his alleged SIRVA at next appointment on May 13, 2022. Rather, he
need only show severity through March 29, 2021. And the mention of an HEP at his PT
discharge further supports the premise that Petitioner would not have experienced a full
symptom resolution in less than three weeks thereafter. Had Petitioner received other
treatment, such as a steroid injection, he may have obtained such accelerated relief - but
no injection was administered in this case.
Petitioner’s overall limited medical care course suggests a lower pain and suffering
award will be proper in calculating damages. And I am not likely to give substantial weight
to the 2022 treatment visit, which not only occurred in the context of the claim’s filing, but
cannot be construed to establish SIRVA-related issues at that time. But it does not mean
I cannot find the basic requirement of six months severity met. Nor does the intermittent
nature of Petitioner’s symptoms prevent him from establishing sequela for more than six
months. Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the
residual effects of his alleged SIRVA for more than six months.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 8 of 10
III. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration of
petitioner’s injury (discussed above in Section II), and the lack of other award or
settlement,6 a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table
criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by
the vaccination she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a Hep B vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(VIII)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
6 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 9 of 10
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
B. Analysis
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. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv) (first
and fourth QAI criteria). And Petitioner experienced pain within 48 hours of vaccination
and exhibited pain and limitations in ROM solely in his left, injured shoulder. E.g., Exhibit
2 at 65 (first report of pain in late October 2020); see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) & (iii)
(second and third QAI criteria).
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, the vaccine
record shows Petitioner received the flu vaccine administered in Minnesota. Exhibit 4 at
2; 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). Additionally, there is
no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award for his injury. See Section
11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for
entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
IV. Appropriate Amount of Compensation
Although I have found Petitioner entitled to compensation, I do not expect the
amount awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering to be great. Throughout his injury,
Petitioner experienced lower levels of pain, primarily with certain movements. He required
9

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/17/24 Page 10 of 10
only conservative treatment, PT and a HEP. After the initial prescription of 15 tablets of
Toradol, to be taken every eight hours as needed for pain, Petitioner required no further
prescription pain medication. See Exhibit 2 at 66. And the PT records showed the
occasional increases Petitioner experienced in late 2020 and early 2021 also were likely
related to strenuous physical activities, such as compiling firewood (filling the wood box).
See, e.g. id. at 11.
Petitioner has characterized his later symptoms, reported in May 2022, as related
to his earlier injury. However, there is not sufficient evidence in the record as it currently
stands to support that assertion. At this appointment, Petitioner reported no pain or
weakness, and a symptom (clicking) not previously mentioned. And his statements
showed that he had been lifting weights - the activity thought to be responsible for the
right wrist and knee pain he experienced in 2019. Exhibit 2 at 69-71, 75-78, 82.
Furthermore, it is important to note that this appointment occurred more than 14 months
after the Petition was filed (ECF No. 1), as well as several months after I instructed
Petitioner to file additional evidence related to severity (ECF No. 18).
Petitioner should not expect a substantial pain and suffering award, given the
overall preponderance of evidence on this issue.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA and the
Vaccine Act’s severity requirement needed for both Table and non-Table claims.
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00596-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-18
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/18/2024) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0596V
ERIC AHLSTROM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 18, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Eric Ahlstrom 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on September 29, 2020. Petition at 1, 1 ¶¶ 2, 13. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Although Respondent opposed compensation,3 on May 15, 2024, I issued a ruling
on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. ECF No. 32.
While reserving his right to appeal my entitlement ruling, on September 17, 2024,
Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner
should be awarded $48,663.78, representing $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and
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).
3 See Rule 4(c) Report, ECF No. 29 (setting out these objections).

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 5
$1,163.78 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1 n1, 2. In the Proffer,
Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on
the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $48,663.78, representing $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and
$1,163.78 for actual unreimbursable expenses 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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-00596-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/18/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
ERIC AHLSTROM, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-596V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 12, 2021, Eric Ahlstrom (“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
(“flu”) vaccine he received on September 29, 2020. Petition at 1. On September 11, 2023, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report, indicating that
this case was not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table
injury. ECF No. 29. On May 15, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement,
finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 32.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s May 15, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/18/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents the expenditure of past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,163.78. 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).2
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 following:
A lump sum payment of $48,663.78, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump Sum paid to petitioner, Eric Ahlstrom: $48,663.78
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00596-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/18/24 Page 5 of 5
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
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Jamica M. Littles
JAMICA M. LITTLES
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) 305-4014
Email: jamica.m.littles@usdoj.gov
DATED: September 17, 2024
3