VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00628
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00628
Petitioner: Jill McAndrew
Filed: 2021-01-13
Decided: 2024-09-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-14
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 55000

AI-assisted case summary:
Jill McAndrew filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine she received on October 14, 2019. She stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that she experienced residual effects of the SIRVA for more than six months, and that she had not filed a civil action or received other compensation for the injury. Respondent denied that Ms. McAndrew suffered from SIRVA, denied that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The court adopted the stipulation as its decision, awarding Ms. McAndrew a lump sum of $55,000.00. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The case proceeded as a Table claim, as SIRVA is a defined Table Injury.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00628-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-17
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/11/2024) regarding 45 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0628V
JILL MCANDREW,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 11, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Kathryn Lee Bruns, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Shah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 13, 2021, Jill McAndrew 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, which was caused by the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine she received on October 14, 2019. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 8, 38. She maintains that
“[her] left shoulder pain began within one hour of her . . . vaccination and has persisted
ever since.” Id. at ¶ 38.
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-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 12
For the reasons discussed below, I find there is preponderant evidence
establishing that the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
Specifically, Petitioner likely suffered pain within an hour of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
A few weeks after filing the Petition, Ms. McAndrew filed an affidavit and some of
the medical records required by the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-8, 10, ECF No. 5; see Section
11(c). She also filed photographs of her left and right arms. Exhibit 9, ECF No. 5.
Petitioner filed the remaining medical records over the subsequent eight-month period.
Exhibits 11-14, filed July 21, 2021, ECF No. 12; Exhibits 15-17, filed Sept. 17, 2021, ECF
No. 14. On September 21, 2021, 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. 18.
While awaiting the HHS review, the parties worked to ensure all prior medical
records had been provided. After it was noted that Petitioner’s earliest primary care
provider (“PCP”) record was from an annual exam only 14 months prior to vaccination,
she was instructed to address the issue further. Order, issued Nov. 23, 2021, ECF No.
23 (citing Exhibit 3 at 2).
In response, Petitioner filed updated medical records and a supplemental
declaration.3 Exhibits 18-19, filed Feb. 1, 2022, ECF No. 24. In the declaration, Petitioner
explained that she was in very good health at the time of vaccination and obtained much
of her routine care from her cardiologist and gynecologist. Exhibit 19 at ¶¶ 4-5. She added
that she had the same PCP from 2013 through 2019, but was not seen by this provider
from 2016 through 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7.
More than eight months later, on October 25, 2022, Respondent stated he was
willing to engage in settlement discussions. ECF No. 35. During the subsequent six-
month period, the parties exchanged several offers and counteroffers. See, e.g., Status
Report, filed Mar. 2, 2023, ECF No. 41. On April 17, 2023, Petitioner informed me that
the parties had reached an impasse in their settlement discussions. ECF No. 42.
Approximately 45 days later, on May 31, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c)
Report opposing compensation. ECF No. 43. Specifically, he maintained that “[t]he record
does not demonstrate that the onset of petitioner’s alleged left shoulder pain was within
forty-eight hours of the subject vaccination.” Id. at 6. Regarding a non-Table or causation-
3 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 19.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 12
in-fact claim, Respondent insists the “medical records do not provide the requisite
evidence to establish that the flu vaccine in fact caused her alleged injury.” Id. at 7.
I have determined that a factual finding related to pain onset may help resolve this
claim. Thereafter, I encourage the parties to renew their settlement discussions, and
Respondent will be allowed the opportunity to raise any additional objections to
compensation in an amended Rule 4(c) Report.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
3

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 4 of 12
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 5 of 12
IV. Finding of Fact
I make this finding related to onset after a complete review of the record to include
all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base the finding
on the following evidence:
• Prior to the vaccination at issue, Petitioner received treatment from her
PCP, cardiologist, gynecologist, and urologist. Exhibit 13, 16-17. In
relatively good health, Petitioner suffered primarily from high blood pressure
and cholesterol. E.g., Exhibit 3 at 2-14.
• There is some evidence showing Petitioner suffered adhesive capsulitis in
either her right or left shoulder more than twenty years ago. See Exhibit 4
at 3 (first orthopedic appointment); Exhibit 1 at ¶ 4 (Petitioner’s affidavit).
Given the length of time that has passed, the medical records related to that
earlier condition have not been provided.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal intramuscularly in her
left deltoid on October 14, 2019, at a Walgreen’s Pharmacy. Exhibit 2 at 2,
16. She was 67 years old at the time of her vaccination. E.g., Exhibit 3 at
14.
• In her affidavit, Petitioner stated that “[her] left arm and shoulder were in
extreme pain almost immediately and the pain continued for weeks.” Exhibit
1 at ¶ 6. She added that she “also had bruising at the injection site for 4-5
days.” Id.
• Petitioner first sought medical treatment on December 13, 2019, sixty days
post-vaccination. Exhibit 3 at 14-15. The medical record from this visit
indicates Petitioner was still complaining of left arm pain and soreness after
receiving a flu shot at Walgreens in October 2019, and “point[ed] to [the]
area of insertion of [the] deltoid tendon as the area of injection.” Id. at 14.
Theorizing that Petitioner may be experiencing a hematoma, improper
injection, and/or high dose reaction, the PCP determined Petitioner should
begin physical therapy (“PT”) if her symptoms continued after an upcoming
trip. Id. In her affidavit, Petitioner explained that she planned to spend
January and February in Florida with her husband. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 7.
• On March 3, 2020, Petitioner returned to her PCP, stating that she “[wa]s
still having a lot of pain in her left arm from an injection . . . in October.”
5

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 6 of 12
Exhibit 3 at 16. She pointed to her smallpox scar as the site of injection. Id.
Observing tenderness and “crying pain at [the] insertion of [the] left deltoid,”
her PCP ordered x-rays and referred Petitioner to an orthopedist prior to
initiating PT. Id. at 16-17. Under current medications, it was noted that
Petitioner should apply Voltaren gel to the affected site as needed. Id. at 16.
• Approximately one week later, on March 11, 2020, Petitioner visited the
orthopedist for pain and dysfunction of her left shoulder. Exhibit 4 at 1-4.
Describing her pain as located in the left deltoid and radiating into her
shoulder, she reported that the “vaccine was given too low in her arm, and
she has had pain since.” Id. at 1. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner “has
had problems since she received a flu injection back in October 2019,” but
he observed no deformity, swelling, erythema,4 warmth, or atrophy upon
examination. Exhibit 4 at 3. Adding that Petitioner’s pain was worsening,
and the x-rays taken earlier were normal, the orthopedist assessed
Petitioner as suffering from frozen shoulder. He theorized that “it may have
had something to so with the flu injection, [s]he may have had her arm sore
and then stopped using her shoulder normally because of soreness.” Id.
Indicating there was no need for an MRI yet, he prescribed Meloxicam5 and
PT. Exhibit 4 at 3.
• At this initial March 11th visit, the orthopedist also discussed Petitioner’s
statement that she had a frozen shoulder previously, and that she believed
it also had occurred in her left shoulder and took a long time to resolve.
Exhibit 4 at 3. In her affidavit, Petitioner clarified that this earlier episode
happened more than 20 years ago, that she could not recall which shoulder
was involved, and that she had not experienced any shoulder pain or
limitations in range of motion (“ROM”) since that time. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 4.
• Two days later, on March 13, 2020, Petitioner presented for her first PT
session. Exhibit 6 at 2. The record from this session describes Petitioner’s
injury as occurring suddenly on October 14, 2019, when she received a flu
shot. Id. Petitioner was described as exhibiting limitations in her ROM, but
tolerating the exercises well. Id. at 3.
4 Erythema is “redness of the skin produced by congestion of the capillaries.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED
MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 643 (32th ed. 2012).
5 Meloxicam is “a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used in the treatment of osteoarthritis; administered
orally. DORLAND’S at 1126.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 7 of 12
• Petitioner attended two additional PT sessions, on March 16 and 19, 2020.
Exhibit 6 at 5-8. In the record from the March 19th session, it was noted that
Petitioner would transition to stretching and a home exercise program. Id.
at 7.
• On April 1, 2020, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist. Exhibit 4 at 5-8. She
reported that she was no longer attending PT but was taking the prescribed
Mobic,6 adding that neither treatment had alleviated her symptoms. Exhibit
4 at 5, 7. However, she stated that she had taken some of her husband’s
Gabapentin, which provided limited relief. Id. Acknowledging that she had
stiffness in her shoulder, Petitioner stated that she “believe[d] the problem
[wa]s in her arm where she had the flu shot.” Id. at 7.
• Upon examination, the orthopedist observed no swelling, redness, or
warmth, but some fluid and tenderness. Exhibit 4 at 7. He also observed
that Petitioner “had good elbow and wrist motion.” Id. Opining that he did
not believe a steroid injection would be helpful, the orthopedist
recommended proceeding with an MRI. He instructed Petitioner to use
Tylenol PM at night to help her sleep. Id.
• The results of the MRI, performed the next day on April 2, 2020, were
normal. Exhibit 3 at 16.
• When Petitioner returned to the orthopedist the next day, she continued to
complain of swelling and tenderness in her proximal arm, at the site of
vaccine injection. Exhibit 4 at 10. Acknowledging that he was “not sure how
to help the patient,” the orthopedist gave Petitioner a copy of the MRI,
showing “no bone problem or a soft fluid accumulation.” Id.
• On April 27, 2020, Petitioner attended a telehealth appointment with the
New York Spine and Wellness Center (“NYSWC”) for treatment of her left
arm pain. Exhibit 5 at 45-48. Reporting pain in her upper arm at the location
of a flu shot she received on October 14, 2019, Petitioner stated that the
pain, currently rated at six out of ten, sometimes “shoots up her arm to her
shoulder blade and down into her wrist, but not quite into her hand.” Id. at
45. The treating physician ordered EMG testing and “a more aggressive
6 Mobic is a “trademark for a preparation of meloxicam.” DORLAND’S at 1171.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 8 of 12
neuropathic medication regime” (id. at 48) - increased dosages of
Gabapentin and nortriptyline7 at night (Exhibit 5 at 47).
• Performed on May 8, 2020, the results of Petitioner’s EMG testing were
normal. Exhibit 5 at 4.
• On May 22, 2020, Petitioner returned to the NYSWC for additional
treatment. Exhibit 5 at 39-44. In the record from this visit, she again
attributed her symptoms to the flu vaccine she received on October 14,
2019. Id. at 40, 43. The nurse practitioner treating Petitioner ordered a
second left shoulder MRI and testing to rule out deep vein thrombosis. Id.
at 43. She stated that Petitioner should consider undergoing a left stellate
ganglion nerve block to rule out chronic regional pain syndrome if the
ordered testing was negative. Id.
• The results of an upper left sided vascular venous ultrasound performed
that same day (May 22, 2020) were unremarkable. Exhibit 5 at 16. “No
abnormal masses or fluid collections [were] detected.” Id. Under clinical
history, the test results listed “[p]ain and swelling [of] the] left upper arm after
flu shot in October.” Id.
• The second left shoulder MRI (performed on June 1, 2020) revealed
“[f]indings suggesting adhesive capsulitis.” Exhibit 4 at 14.
• Petitioner attended another telehealth appointment with the nurse
practitioner at the NYSWC on June 24, 2020, to discuss her recent test
results. Exhibit 5 at 34-38. Expressing frustration at the inability of medical
treaters to provide a definitive diagnosis for her condition, Petitioner
reported she was in too much pain for PT and that her left arm was more
swollen than her right. The nurse practitioner again discussed the possibility
of a nerve block but stated Petitioner should first have an in-person
appointment with a physician. Id. at 38.
• On July 13, 2020, Petitioner attended an in-person appointment at NYSWC.
Exhibit 5 at 29-33. Noting that Petitioner had improved with her current
neuropathic medication regime and had experienced no side effects from
the medication, the treating physician increased her dosages. Id. at 33. He
also prescribed lidocaine patches and advised Petitioner to participate in
7 Nortriptyline hydrochloride is medication, administered orally, “used to treat panic disorder and to relieve
chronic, severe pain.” DORLAND’S at 1291.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 9 of 12
some type of home exercise program to combat her adhesive capsulitis.
After Petitioner expressed her unwillingness to undergo a stellate ganglion
nerve block, the physician suggested a trial “of Tramadol[8] to help facilitate
physical therapy.” Exhibit 5 at 33.
• On July 24, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI of the cervical spine,
revealing mild disc protrusion and narrowing within from C3 to C6 and mild
central canal stenosis in C6 and C7. Exhibit 4 at 12.
• When she returned to NYSWC a few days later, on July 29, 2020, Petitioner
reported 85 percent improvement but some mild swelling and tenderness
at the site of injection. Exhibit 5 at 24. She also had a right-sided breast
biopsy which was preventing her temporarily from performing her exercises.
Id. Petitioner’s active problems now included intractable neuropathic pain
of the upper extremity and radicular pain in the left arm, in addition to left
shoulder pain and frozen shoulder. Id. at 25. The nurse practitioner renewed
Petitioner’s Gabapentin and prescribed Tramadol. Id. at 27.
• Petitioner began a second round of PT on October 29, 2020. Exhibit 8 at 2.
At her initial evaluation, she again reported that her left shoulder pain
“started as soon as she got her flu shot in 10/14/2019.” Id. at 4. Petitioner
reported that she currently had no pain, but that the level of her pain was
eight at its worst. Id. By her second PT session on November 4, 2020,
Petitioner reported “feeling better already, [with] [l]ess pain in the shoulder
and more mobility.” Id.
• From late October 2020 through March 2021, Petitioner attended 31 PT
sessions. Exhibits 8, 13. During recertification on March 18, 2021, she
reported improved functionality, greater strength and stability, but some
difficulty still gripping items, reaching behind, and lifting heavy objects.
Exhibit 13 at 51. The physical therapist opined that Petitioner “would benefit
from a few more weeks of PT.” Id.
• When Petitioner returned to PT five days later, on March 23, 2021, she
stated that her primary complaint was for lower back and left buttock pain.
Exhibit 13 at 55. She explained that she had tried lifting her television and
fell on her lower back and leg. Id. It appears that she attended five more PT
8 Tramadol hydrochloride is “an opioid analgesic used for the treatment of moderate to moderately severe
pain following surgical procedures and oral surgery; administered orally.” DORLAND’S at 1950.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 10 of 12
sessions in March and April 2021, for symptoms from this later injury. Id. at
61-72.
• On June 2, 2021, Petitioner was discharged from PT because she was
undergoing “gastro surgery.” Exhibit 13 at 73.
• Petitioner also provided photographs which she claims show her left arm
swelling and atrophy and differences between her left and right forearms.
Exhibit 9 (photographs); Exhibit 19 (supplemental declaration). The
photographs included in Exhibit 9 are not dated, but Petitioner states that
the photograph included in her declaration was taken in October 2021.
Exhibit 19 at ¶ 11.
The record as a whole supports Petitioner’s description of pain as occurring almost
immediately post-vaccination – within an hour. See Petition at ¶¶ 9, 38. In multiple post-
vaccination medical records, Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain that began
upon vaccination. Exhibit 3 at 14, 16; Exhibit 4 at 1; Exhibit 5 at 45; Exhibit 6 at 2. Without
fail, she attributed her injury to the flu vaccine she received in October 2019. Id. On
multiple occasions she identified the date of onset as October 14, 2019. Exhibit 5 at 45;
Exhibit 6 at 2. While these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner,
they still should be afforded greater weight than more current representations, as they
were uttered contemporaneously with Petitioner’s injury for the purposes of obtaining
medical care.
The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant
consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by
health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras,
993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Thus, the Circuit has instructed that greater weight
should be accorded to this information even when the information is provided by a patient
(such that it could still be somewhat subjective).
Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the opinions of her PCP,
orthopedist, and physical therapist. Her PCP suggested that her condition, characterized
as a reaction, “may be hematoma, injection into site other than muscle belly, or high dose
reaction, or some combination of these. Exhibit 3 at 14. The orthopedist opined that he
thought her condition “may have had something to do with the flu injection.” Exhibit 4 at
3. All medical providers appeared to credit and rely upon Petitioner’s assertions related
to pain onset.
10

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 11 of 12
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, I find the onset of
petitioner’s pain within an hour of vaccination.
V. Remaining Requirements for Entitlement
Although I have determined that Petitioner’s pain onset occurred within the period
required for a Table SIRVA, further development of the record is needed before I address
the other requirements of entitlement. Petitioner’s case is complicated by the fact that her
symptoms and circumstances are not reflective of a typical SIRVA injury.
As shown throughout the medical records in this case, Petitioner complained of
pain at the injection site of a vaccine administered too low in her left deltoid that radiated
into her shoulder and down her arm. And she gained relief primarily from medication used
to treat neuropathic pain such as her husband’s Gabapentin. However, the results of EMG
testing performed in early May 2020 were normal, and thus not corroborative of the
complained-of injury. Exhibit 5 at 4.
At the same time, it does appear that Petitioner had a reaction at the site of
vaccination. In the medical histories she provided, Petitioner consistently described an
injection site reaction accompanied by redness, pain, and swelling at the injection site.
Exhibit 3 at 14, 16; Exhibit 4 at 1; Exhibit 5 at 45; Exhibit 6 at 2. And the PCP who was
the first to treat Petitioner, approximately 60 days post-vaccination, discussed the
possibility that her condition was a reaction to the flu vaccine. Exhibit 3 at 14.
However, it is difficult to determine the severity and duration of this reaction.
Although Petitioner’s orthopedist observed no redness, warmth, or swelling at her first
appointment in March 2020, he noted some swelling during the next appointment one
month later. Exhibit 4 at 3, 7. However, the photographs Petitioner provided do not show
the significant differences Petitioner claims. See Exhibit 9; Exhibit 19 at ¶ 11.
Most importantly, it does not appear that Petitioner even underwent the testing
recommended to rule out chronic regional pain syndrome. Exhibit 5 at 43, 33 (chronologic
order). And the spinal MRI reveal some abnormal findings. Exhibit 4 at 12.
Although Respondent did not raise any additional objections to entitlement in his
Rule 4(c) Report, I will allow him the opportunity to amend that document to update it in
light of these fact findings. Additionally, the parties should renew their settlement
discussions to determine whether they can reach an informal settlement, following my
pain onset determination and other issues discussed in this ruling.
11

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/24 Page 12 of 12
VI. Scheduling Order
As set forth in his Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent’s only objection to compensation
was the contention that Petitioner had failed to establish the pain onset needed for a
Table SIRVA. Thus, he should provide his current position in light of my finding regarding
pain onset. Additionally, the parties should resume their settlement discussions to
determine whether they can informally resolve this case.
The parties shall file a joint status report updating me on their renewed
settlement discussions by no later than Monday, May 13, 2024. Petitioner also
should file any updated medical records as soon as possible.
Respondent shall file an amended Rule 4(c) Report, stating whether he has
any other objections to compensation by no later than Friday, June 14, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00628-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-16
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/08/2024) regarding 51 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0628V
JILL MCANDREW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Shah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 13, 2021, Jill McAndrew 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, which was caused by the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine she received on October 14, 2019. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 8, 38; Stipulation, filed Aug.
8, 2024, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine within the
United States, that she suffered the residual effects of the SIRVA for more than six
months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received
compensation for the SIRVA, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 8, 37, 39;
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
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-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 2 of 7
denies that [P]etitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.”
Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on August 8, 2024, 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 $55,000.00 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-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
JILL McANDREW, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 2 l-628V
V. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
________________
)
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
I. Jill McAndrew, petitioner, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-l Oe l 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. § 100.3(a).
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on or about October 14, 2019.
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
for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 4 of 7
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.
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 $55,000.00 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)(l ), 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-l 5(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be
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.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 5 of 7
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-
15(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, and past unreimbursable expenses, 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-l 5(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 14,
2019, as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed January 12, 2021, in
the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 2 l-628V.
14. (f petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 6 of 7
15. lfthe 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 l 986, 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-00628-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/16/24 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITiONER:
~~
A'ITORNEY OF REACORJD / AUTHORIZED REP.RF.SENT ATIVE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
FORPETITJ.07.
-AdJ c}-d...y\i.'?c~
~~B~:::7-
HEATIIBR L. PEARLMAN
Faraci Lange Deputy Director
1882 South )Vinton Ro~ Suite 1 Torts Branch
Rochester,~ 14618 Civil Di,-vision
Tel: (585) 399-6026 U.S. De~artment of Justice
mbelanger@fami.com P.O. Box 146
Be.ojamin Franklin Station
washlngion, oc
20044-01~
AUmORIZED ]mfRESENfA TivE ATT~RJ-iE~OFJ.U!:CORDFOR
0) TiiE SECUTARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND llCJMAN SERVIC~:
Jeffreys.
l fit~~1"edbyJell'r1y
-S
Beach 1~2024.01.23 16:39"6
I/ -0-t'otr for
CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH SHAH
Direct.or, Division of Injury • Attorney
Compensation Programs ortsBraoch
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) 305-2181
Rockville, MD 20857 jennifer.shah@usdoj.gov
5