VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00664
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00664
Petitioner: Lisa Brewer
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2025-08-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-21
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Lisa Brewer, a 56-year-old female, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 12, 2021. She alleged that an influenza vaccine she received on October 21, 2020, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), which is a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Ms. Brewer received the flu vaccine in her right deltoid. She reported experiencing pain in her right shoulder shortly after the vaccination, which she initially tried to manage with home remedies. Approximately one month later, she sought medical attention for bilateral shoulder pain, noting that the right shoulder pain began after the flu shot. Her medical records indicate pain and reduced range of motion in both shoulders, but her left shoulder injury was attributed to yard work. Treating physicians diagnosed a strain of the right supraspinatus tendon and administered steroid injections. The respondent argued that Ms. Brewer failed to prove her right shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. However, the Chief Special Master found that the evidence preponderated in favor of Ms. Brewer establishing a Table SIRVA, noting her sworn statement and medical records attributing the right shoulder pain to the vaccination within the required timeframe. The court found no prior history of right shoulder issues, that the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the right shoulder, and that no other condition explained the symptoms. Ms. Brewer also met the requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months. Consequently, the court ruled that Ms. Brewer is entitled to compensation, with a damages order to follow.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00664-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-07
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/07/2025) regarding 57 Ruling on Entitlement,, Order on Motion for Decision,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-664V
LISA BREWER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Filed: July 7, 2025
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Courtney C. Jorgenson, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Lisa Brewer 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 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on October 21, 2020, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a Vaccine Table injury. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters. For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA.
1 Because this ruling and decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means this Ruling/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-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 2 of 11
I. Procedural History
This claim was initiated on January 12, 2021, and relevant medical records were
filed thereafter. ECF Nos. 7, 15, 20. Respondent filed a status report on April 19, 2023,
indicating that he was amenable to informal resolution in this case. ECF No. 38. However,
on June 12, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report indicating that she had sent Respondent
a demand but had yet to hear back with a counteroffer. ECF No. 42. Petitioner also filed
the instant Motion for Decision on the Record on the same day. ECF No. 41.
On June 27, 2023, I issued a scheduling order, noting that Petitioner’s Motion was
premature because the parties had not had a meaningful opportunity to engage in
settlement negotiations. ECF No. 44. On August 18, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report
representing that the parties had reached an impasse in their settlement discussions.
ECF No. 46. On October 13, 2023, Respondent filed his own brief responding to
Petitioner’s Motion as well as his contesting Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 47-48. Petitioner
filed her Reply brief on October 17, 2023. ECF No. 49. This matter is now ripe for
disposition.
II. Evidence
A. Medical Records
On October 21, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right deltoid. Ex. 5 at
3-4. At the time of vaccination, Petitioner was a fifty-six-year-old female with no history of
right shoulder pain or injury. On October 26, 2020 (five days post vaccination), Petitioner
visited her primary care provider, Stephen Cullen, M.D., with a primary complaint of
“mouth lesions”. Ex. 2 at 23-25. The records from that visit do not reflect any complaint of
shoulder pain.
On November 19, 2020, Petitioner had a telehealth exam with Gretchen Dixon,
MS PAC. Ex. 2 at 30-34. Petitioner complained of shoulder pain in both shoulders. Id. at
31. Petitioner stated her left shoulder pain began “while doing yard work in September of
2020,” and her right shoulder “has been bothering her since she got her flu shot and that
it was placed high on her shoulder.” Id. PA Dixon prescribed oral steroids and referred
Petitioner to physical therapy (“PT”). Id. at 33.
On November 25, 2020, Petitioner underwent an initial PT evaluation for bilateral
shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 1-2. The records mention that Petitioner claimed her left shoulder
was injured due to cutting wood, while her right shoulder pain began after her vaccination.
Id. at 1. The primary concern, in the medical records, was listed as left shoulder pain. Id.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 3 of 11
On December 28, 2020, during a PT session, Petitioner stated she was tolerating
therapy well with less pain since beginning therapy. Ex. 4 at 15. Petitioner was noted as
having an upcoming appointment with an orthopedist. Id. On December 30, 2020,
Petitioner was examined by orthopedist Robert Crawford, M.D., due to bilateral shoulder
pain. Ex. 3 at 2-13. Petitioner noted her pain started about four months ago. Id. at 3.
Petitioner stated she hurt the left shoulder while cutting wood back in August and her right
shoulder “has been bothering her since a flu shot about two months ago.” Id. Upon
physical exam, Petitioner was observed to display abnormal range of motion in both
shoulders and decreased strength. Id. at 11. Dr. Crawford administered steroid injections
to Petitioner’s bilateral shoulders. Id.
On January 20, 2021, during her ninth PT session, Petitioner reported her right
shoulder “feels ok and left shoulder catching.” Ex. 4 at 24. This was the last record
regarding a PT visit. On April 28, 2021, six months post vaccination, Petitioner was
examined by Dr. Crawford, due to right shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 2-16. Upon physical exam,
Dr. Crawford noted abnormal range of motion (“ROM”) in Petitioner’s right shoulder. Id.
at 6. Dr. Crawford’s diagnosis was a strain of the right supraspinatus tendon. Id. at 10.
Petitioner was given instructions for a home exercise program. Id. at 10-12. On May 6,
2021, Petitioner was examined by Jennifer L. Mathias, APRN, due to a lump on her left
arm. Ex. 9 at 30-33. There was no mention of shoulder pain in the records for this visit.
B. Witness Statements
Ms. Brewer submitted a sworn statement on July 13, 2021. ECF No. 12. In it, she
represents that at the time she received the flu vaccine in her right arm, she noticed the
injection seemed too high on her arm and that she felt instant pain. Id. ¶ 2. She states
that she attempted to self-treat her symptoms with heat and ice and over-the-counter pain
medication, but that this was unsuccessful. Id. ¶ 4. She then describes how she was
prescribed oral steroids and referred to PT, and ultimately received two steroid injections,
one in each arm. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. Finally, she notes that of April 28, 2021, her treating
orthopedist believed that additional steroid injections and more PT would help her right
shoulder. Id. ¶ 10.
III. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner argues that her medical records and affidavit support her claim that her
shoulder pain began withing the 48 hours of receiving the vaccination, and that all other
elements of a Table SIRVA are present here. ECF No. 41 at 4-5. Respondent argues
that Petitioner cannot maintain a Table SIRVA claim because she has failed in providing
preponderant evidence that her right shoulder pain began within 48-hours of vaccination.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 4 of 11
Resp. at 5-6. Specifically, Respondent points to Petitioner’s delay in seeking treatment
for approximately one month, that five days after vaccination Petitioner had a medical
appointment during which she did not mention her right shoulder pain, and that when she
did report her right shoulder pain, she did not place a specific timeframe for her pain
onset, only that it occurred after her flu vaccination in October. Id.
IV. Applicable Law
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 5 of 11
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).
V. Analysis
I. Fact Findings – Onset and Entitlement
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must establish that he 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).
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she 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 her injury for more than six months, died from her 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 § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 6 of 11
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 an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). 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
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).
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, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
6

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 7 of 11
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
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 at 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 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
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184 at 204 (2013) (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. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that the evidence preponderates in favor
of the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner has no Prior Right Shoulder Condition or Injury
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). In this case, the medical records do not indicate
that Petitioner suffered any prior right shoulder pain issues, and Respondent does not
7

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 8 of 11
contend that Petitioner has failed to carry her burden with respect to this requirement.
Accordingly, the record allows me to find that Petitioner had no prior right shoulder
condition or injury.
2. Pain Occurs with the Specified Timeframe (Onset)
A SIRVA claimant must show that she experienced the first symptom or onset
within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)), and that her pain occurred
within that same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI criteria)).
Respondent’s first argument against onset is that Ms. Brewer did not report her
shoulder injury to a medical provider until approximately one month after vaccination,
despite having a medical appointment scheduled five days after. Resp. at 5. But there are
a variety of explanations for why an individual may delay medical treatment - especially
for a possible vaccine injury to the shoulder. Many individuals expect, and are advised,
that there will be pain at the injection site after vaccination. This can lead to a delay in
seeking treatment. An individual’s particular threshold for pain, or avoidance of doctors,
are other reasons.
In this case, a one-month delay in seeking treatment is wholly unremarkable.
Petitioner attested tin her sworn statement that she believed that she would be able to
resolve her pain on her own with the use of heat, ice, and over-the-counter pain
medication. Ex. 12 at ¶ 4. It is also not unreasonable that Ms. Brewer would not bring up
the recent onset of right shoulder pain during her October 26, 2020, medical examination
before Dr. Cullen. The reason for this visit is noted to be “mouth lesions,” and the record
describes Ms. Brewer’s concern with face and lip sores that were getting worse, possibly
due to having to wear a mask during her shift as a waitress. Ex. 2 at 23.
Respondent’s second argument against onset is that when Ms. Brewer did seek
treatment for her right shoulder pain, she did not specifically indicate that pain began
within 48-hours of the vaccination, but rather only that it began generally after her October
vaccination. Resp. at 6. Respondent contends this situation is similar to the one in
McMullen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., where a petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim was
dismissed because the medical records preponderated a finding of a more gradual onset
of pain. Id. at n.3 (citing McMullen, No. 20-482V, 2023 WL 3409215 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jul. 28, 2022).
Although the records in this case may not place onset within 48-hours with optimal
specificity, the instant case is still distinguishable from the factual circumstances in
McMullen. What ultimately proved to be fatal to the McMullen petitioner’s claim was that
8

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 9 of 11
the records showed that the petitioner had some initial hesitancy regarding the cause of
his pain, and that several medical records placed onset at a shorter time period than
would have been had the symptoms first started within 48 hours. Id. at *5. Thus, although
some records referred to pain “since or post status” vaccination, the vagueness of those
records was not enough to overcome other records which described a more gradual onset
of shoulder pain. Id.
Here, by contrast, all the records describe Ms. Brewer reporting her pain as
existing since her vaccination, and attributing her pain to that specific event. For example,
her first appointment seeking treatment for her right shoulder pain was on November 29,
2020, and the records from that visit state: “Pt states her right shoulder has been
bothering her since she got her flu shot. States that ‘it was placed too high on her
shoulder’” and “right shoulder pain d/t flu shot x 1 month. Pt feels shot was placed too
high.” Ex. 2 at 30-31. On her initial evaluation for PT on November 25, 2020, the record
states “Flu shot in right shoulder caused incredible pain in right shoulder.” Ex. 4 at 1.
When she was first examined by an orthopedist on December 30, 2020, the record from
that visit indicates “right shoulder has been bothering her since a flu shot about 2 months
ago.” Ex. 3 at 3. Moreover, there are not any records, such as in McMullen, which attribute
her right shoulder pain to anything other than her vaccination, or the onset of her pain as
a gradual occurrence.
Overall, I find that the totality of the evidence preponderantly supports the
conclusion that Ms. Brewer’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of her vaccination,
as alleged.
3. Petitioner’s Pain and Limited Range of Motion was Limited to Her
Right Shoulder
The QAI for a SIRVA claim requires the petitioner to demonstrate that “pain and
reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine
was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (QAI criteria)). It does not appear that
Respondent is contesting this criterion, however, and there is nothing in the submitted
record to indicate that Petitioner’s symptoms were not limited to her right shoulder.
Petitioner has consistently complained of right shoulder pain and loss of ROM since
receiving the flu vaccination. Although Petitioner simultaneously complained of left
shoulder pain and received treatment for both shoulders, it is undisputed that Petitioner
injured her left shoulder while chopping wood prior to receiving the flu vaccine in October
2020. Petitioner at no time indicated that the two injuries were related in any way and
none of Petitioner’s treating providers ascribed Petitioner’s left shoulder pain to her flu
vaccination. Rather, it appears Petitioner is the victim of the unfortunate circumstances
9

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 10 of 11
of having suffered two different shoulder injuries simultaneously. Accordingly, Petitioner
has satisfied the third QAI requirement.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criterion for a Table SIRVA states that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Once again, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that another
condition or abnormality could be the cause of Petitioner’s right shoulder injury and
Respondent does not offer any argument to the contrary. Accordingly, Petitioner has
satisfied the fourth QAI requirement.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). The overall record
contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Ms. Brewer received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in her
right shoulder on October 21, 2020. Ex. 5 at 3-4; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt
of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
for her injury. Petition at 4; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
As stated above, I have found that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain
likely occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting
forth this requirement). This finding also satisfies the requirement that Petitioner’s first
symptom or manifestation of onset occur within the time frame listed on the Vaccine Injury
Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48 hours for a Table SIRVA
following receipt of the influenza vaccine). I have also found that Petitioner’s pain and
reduced range of motion attributable to receiving the flu vaccination was limited to her
right shoulder. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). Finally, I find that there was no condition or
abnormality that would explain Petitioner’s symptoms after vaccination. Id. Therefore,
Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA.
The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of her
SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer
the residual effects of their shoulder injury for more than six months or required surgical
intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Starting from
October 23, 2020 (48 hours after vaccination), the records undoubtedly demonstrate that
10

Case 1:21-vv-00664-UNJ Document 60 Filed 08/07/25 Page 11 of 11
Ms. Brewer suffered the residual effects of her shoulder injury for more than six months.
See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 3 (record from Dr. Crawford, an orthopedist, in which Petitioner reported
7/10 pain in her right shoulder, that cortisone injections were beneficial but the pain and
started to return, and that she had been having difficulty sleeping, and noting that her
range of motion was still abnormal).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
The issuance of a damages order will follow the filing of this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11