VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00685
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00685
Petitioner: Sonja Jackman
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2024-11-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-04
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60581

AI-assisted case summary:
Sonja Jackman filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 4, 2020. The injury was identified as a defined Table injury. Jackman filed her initial petition on January 12, 2021, and an amended petition with more detail on February 18, 2022. A ruling on entitlement was issued on September 10, 2024, finding that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and that she suffered residual effects for more than six months, meeting the Table requirements. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Jackman satisfied the legal prerequisites for compensation. Subsequently, on October 24, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation. A decision awarding damages was issued on November 25, 2024. Jackman was awarded a lump sum payment of $60,581.25, which included $60,000.00 for pain and suffering and $581.25 for past unreimbursable expenses. The respondent indicated that Jackman, as a competent adult, agreed with the proffered award.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00685-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-09
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/08/2024) regarding 37 Scheduling Order, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0685V
SONJA JACKMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Alec Saxe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 12, 2021, Sonja Jackman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). More than a year later, on February 18, 2022, she filed an amended
petition, containing additional detail and medical record citations. ECF No. 26. Petitioner
alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November
4, 2020. Amended Petition at 1-2, 9.
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-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. I also find Petitioner suffered the residual effects
of the right shoulder pain she experienced post-vaccination for more than six months.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Presumably due to the then-anticipated removal of SIRVA from the Vaccine
Table,3 Ms. Jackman filed a cursory petition without medical records on January 12, 2021.
ECF No. 1. Over the subsequent 13-month period, she filed two signed declarations4 and
the medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-11, ECF Nos. 7, 11, 16,
20, 22; see Section 11(c). She also filed an amended petition containing additional details
and medical records citation. ECF No. 26. On June 2, 2022, the case was activated and
assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (the “SPU” - OSM’s adjudicatory system for
resolution of cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 27.
Thereafter, Petitioner continued to file updated medical records. Exhibits 12, filed
Apr. 26, 2023, ECF No. 32. Per my instruction, she also worked to finalize a demand.
Status Reports, filed Mar. 20 and May 23, 2023, ECF Nos. 31, 34.
On August 7, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, opposing
compensation. ECF No. 36. Emphasizing Petitioner’s statements - made when first
seeking treatment on December 2, 2020, only 28-days post-vaccination, that her right
shoulder pain began more than one month ago and that her pain was exacerbated by the
flu vaccine, Respondent argued that Petitioner is unable to satisfy the first, second, and
fourth Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) criteria. Id. at 8-9; see 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(i)(ii) & (iv) (requiring pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination and no prior
shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction or current condition that would explain her
symptoms). He also maintained Petitioner cannot satisfy the Vaccine Act’s six-month
severity requirement because she attended her physical therapy (“PT”) session
approximately two weeks shy of the six-month mark and did not return for treatment until
almost eight months thereafter. Rule 4(c) Report at 9; Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-
month severity requirement). The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
3 On July 20, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed the removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Proposed Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43794 (July 20, 2020). On April 22, 2021, the final rule removing
SIRVA from the Vaccine Table was rescinded. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions
to the Vaccine Injury Table, Withdrawal of Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 21209 (Apr. 22, 2021).
4 Although not notarized, the declarations were signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1746. Exhibit 10-11.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 3 of 9
II. Issues
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours, as required by the
Vaccine Injury Table and QAI for a Table SIRVA, and whether Petitioner continued to
suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA for more than six months. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)
XIV.B. (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed
in the QAI); Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity requirement).
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
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
3

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 4 of 9
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).
IV. Findings of Fact
I make these findings, related to onset and severity, after a complete review of the
record to include all medical records, affidavits, briefing, and additional evidence filed.
Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner (a photographer) suffered from common
conditions: hypertension (accompanied by headaches and some vertigo),
anxiety, depression, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Exhibit 2. In
2018-19, she experienced a painful bump on her right wrist, diagnosed as
right wrist ganglion and requiring surgery in late June 2019. Id. at 23-32;
Exhibit 4. In late November 2019, Petitioner visited an urgent care facility
4

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 5 of 9
for pain in her right ear and an itchy rash on her right upper arm, chest, right
jaw, and leg. Exhibit 3 at 15. In May 2020, she visited a different urgent care
facility for right wrist and thumb pain after hitting her hand on something.
Exhibit 7 at 6.
• On November 4, 2020, Petitioner (52 years old) received the flu vaccine
intramuscularly in her right arm at a Sam’s Club. Exhibit 1 at 3.
• On December 2, 2020, 28-days post-vaccination, Petitioner visited her
primary care provider (“PCP”) complaining of “1 month of right arm pain,
decreased rom, stabbing pain anytime she moves it.” Exhibit 2 at 61.
Characterized as a “new problem,” her symptoms were noted to include
myalgias “[e]xacerbated by: the flu vaccine.” Id. Multiple entries in this
medical record, including the entry pertaining to the PCP’s diagnosis,
describe Petitioner as suffering from “immobility and pain for one month
after the flu vaccine”. Id. at 59; accord. id. at 62-63, 65-66, 68. The
orthopedist ordered a CT and vascular upper venous right arm testing,
prescribed cyclobenzaprine for muscle spasms and meloxicam, and
referred Petitioner to an orthopedist. Id. at 70.
• Performed one week later, the CT scan revealed “[n]onspecific ill-defined
hyperdensity along the distal teres minor tendon/muscle” prompting
consideration of hyperemia5 and tendinitis, and a suggestion of
cholelithiasis.6 Exhibit 5 at 11. The duplex ultrasound showed no evidence
of deep vein thrombosis. Id. at 26.
• On December 16, 2020, Petitioner was seen by the orthopedist for
“evaluation of right should pain.” Exhibit 6 at 11. Reporting that [s]he has
had trouble with the shoulder now for 6 weeks . . . [and] pain develop[ed]
after she received a flu shot,” Petitioner described sharp pain (at a level of
seven out of ten), primarily in the posterior and lateral aspects, and
sometimes radiating towards her neck, that worsened with motion. Id. After
reviewing x-ray results which were unremarkable, the orthopedist
administered a steroid injection and recommended activity modification. Id.
at 12.
5 Hyperemia is “an increase of blood in a part.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”)
at 888 (32th ed. 2012).
6 Cholelithiasis is “the presence or formation of gallstones.” DORLAND’S at 349.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 6 of 9
• On February 2, 2021, Petitioner underwent an MRI of her right shoulder that
revealed “[m]oderate distal insertional teres minor . . . tendinosis with strain
of the distal insertional muscle fibers, [m]ild supraspinatus and infraspinatus
tendinosis,” “[m]ild acromioclavicular and minor glenohumeral arthrosis,”
and no rotator cuff tear, muscle atrophy, or “significant joint effusion or
subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis.” Exhibit 6 at 13.
• Almost two weeks later, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist, reporting that
her steroid injection did not provide “much relief.” Exhibit 6 at 10. Observing
pain along the posterior lateral aspect with palpitation full, but painful, ROM,
and “weakness secondary to pain,” the orthopedist prescribed an oral
steroid and recommended physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
• On March 4, 2021, Petitioner attended her first PT session. Exhibit 8 at 35-
39. She again linked her right shoulder pain to the flu vaccine, reporting
“pain after receiving a Flu shot.” Id. at 36. Estimating her pain level as six to
nine out of ten, Petitioner was assessed as having a DASH score of 86. Id.
• By her fifth PT session on March 23, 2021, Petitioner’s pain had decreased
to three at rest and five at worst. Exhibit 8 at 24. Her DASH score was noted
to be 84. Id. at 23-24.
• At her seventh PT session on April 6, 2021, Petitioner reported that “she
feels the exercise pushing [her] shoulder back is helping improve her
motion, but she still has ‘achiness’ inside her shoulder.” Exhibit 8 at 18. The
therapist opined that Petitioner’s “[g]oals remain appropriate and can be met
with additional therapy,” twice weekly. Id. at 19.
• At her eighth and last PT session on April 21, 2021, Petitioner stated that
she had not been to PT because she was in Michigan visiting her mother.
Exhibit 8 at 15. Reporting that she had continued her exercises on her own,
she described her shoulder as “not any worse,” adding that “she is still
having some pain along the outside top of [her] shoulder when she lowers
[her] arm from [a] raise[d] position.” Id. Noting that Petitioner “did well with
new exercises,” but that needed to modify one exercise to avoid increased
pain, the therapist again opined that Petitioner would benefit from continued
PT. Id.
• Petitioner did not seek medical treatment again until December 8, 2021,
when she was seen for follow-up of several ongoing conditions, including
right shoulder tendinitis. Exhibit 9 at 13-35. Regarding her shoulder, she
6

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 7 of 9
reported “[d]ifficulty holding things if she role [sic] on it at night.” Id. at 17.
The PCP prescribed Gabapentin for her pain and instructed her to return
for a physical in six months.
• As instructed, Petitioner returned to her PCP on June 8, 2022. Exhibit 12 at
9-26. Her primary concern at this appointment was abdominal pressure and
abnormal stools. Id. at 13-14. Although than a notation that her ROM was
normal under “Musculoskeletal”, there was no discussion of Petitioner’s
right shoulder tendinitis. Id. at 16. However, it appears the PCP ordered a
refill of her Gabapentin and instructed Petitioner to follow-up with the
orthopedist. Id. at 12.
• Petitioner’s PCP medical records contain an entry stating her prescription
for Gabapentin was discontinued on July 19, 2022. Exhibit 12 at 11.
• In her first declaration, signed under penalty of perjury on February 12,
2021, Petitioner addressed the basic requirement of a vaccine claim: that
neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received an award
for her SIRVA. Exhibit 11.
• In her second declaration, signed under penalty of perjury on February 16,
2022, Petitioner provided more details regarding her alleged SIRVA. Exhibit
10. She recounted that she “noticed that something felt different almost
immediately after the injection.” Id. at ¶ 2. She added that “the pain spread
through [her] chest, under [her] breast plate.” Id. at ¶ 3. “Over the next
several days, the chest pain resolved, but the pain in [her] right shoulder
remained.” Id. Petitioner also provided detailed descriptions of the effects
of her injury. Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.
Onset
The record as a whole supports Petitioner’s description of immediate pain upon
vaccination. In multiple post-vaccination medical records involving her PCP, orthopedist,
and physical therapist, Petitioner consistently reported right shoulder pain that began
upon vaccination. Exhibit 2 at 59; Exhibit 6 at 11; Exhibit 8 at 36. Without fail, she
attributed her injury to the flu vaccine she received in early November 2020. Id. 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.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 8 of 9
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).
The basis for Respondent’s onset challenge is found in two entries contained in
the medical record from Petitioner’s December 2, 2020 visit to her PCP, when she first
sought treatment of her right shoulder pain. The first entry states that Petitioner’s shoulder
pain began one month ago. Exhibit 2 at 61. If considered to equate to exactly 30 days
(the length of the month of November), this entry would place Petitioner’s pain onset two
days prior to vaccination. The second entry states that the vaccine exacerbated
Petitioner’s symptoms. Id.
However, the record in this case also contains multiple entries clearly stating that
Petitioner’s symptoms began after vaccination. Exhibit 2 at 59, 62-63, 65-66, 68. And the
entry referring to the exacerbation of Petitioner’s symptoms appears to be a standard
entry utilized by the PCP. Furthermore, the term “one month” is not an exact or consistent
term, and is often used to describe a time period slightly more of less than 30 days. Thus,
I do not find Respondent’s arguments related to pain onset to be persuasive.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, I find Petitioner’s
pain began immediately upon vaccination as Petitioner alleges.
Severity
To satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement in this case, Petitioner must show
that she suffered symptoms of her alleged SIRVA beyond May 4, 2021 (assuming an
immediate onset on November 4th, which I find the record preponderantly supports). The
above medical entries clearly establish that Petitioner continued to suffer right shoulder
pain on April 21, 2021, less than two weeks shy of the six-month mark. At that PT session,
she reported symptoms that had not worsened, but also had not resolved, while she relied
on home exercises only during a visit to her mother. Exhibit 8 at 15. The therapist reported
the need to modify one exercise which caused Petitioner increased pain and opined that
she would benefit from further PT. Id.
Although Petitioner did not pursue any additional PT, she also did not received
treatment likely to have resulted in a quick resolution of the symptoms she reported in
8

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/09/24 Page 9 of 9
late April 2021, such as a steroid injection. Considering the rate of her progress up unto
that point, it is reasonable to infer that Petitioner continued to experience symptoms, at
least through May 4, 2021, only 13 days later.
Additionally, Petitioner again reported at least some mild symptoms when seen by
her PCP in December 2021. And she attended no intervening appointments prior to that
time. The mild and intermittent nature of the symptoms Petitioner described in December
2021, does not prevent her from satisfying the severity requirement. Thus, I find there is
preponderant evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged
SIRVA for more than six months.
V. Scheduling Order
Because Respondent based his remaining objections to compensation upon his
mistakenly belief that the evidence preponderantly supported a pain onset prior to
vaccination, which I have found not to be accurate, I am allowing him the opportunity to
provide his current position in light of my findings related to pain onset and severity.
Additionally, Petitioner should provide Respondent with a reasonable demand and
supporting documentation.
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in
light of my factual ruling by no later than Friday, August 09, 2024. In the status report,
he also should indicate whether Petitioner has provided him with a demand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00685-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/10/2024) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0685V
SONJA JACKMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 10, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Alec Saxe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Sonja Jackman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”).3 Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 4, 2020. Amended Petition at 1-2, 9. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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).
3 More than a year later, on February 18, 2022, she filed an amended petition, containing additional detail
and medical record citations. ECF No. 26.

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/11/24 Page 2 of 2
On July 8, 2024, I issued a factual ruling, finding the onset of Petitioner’s right
shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and Petitioner suffered the residual
effects of the right shoulder pain she experienced post-vaccination for more than six
months. ECF No. 37; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation); Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity requirement). On
September 6, 2024, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) Report, indicating that he
“will not defend the case.” Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2, ECF No. 41. Reserving his
right to appeal my fact ruling regarding onset and severity but acknowledging that it is the
law of the case for further proceedings (id. at 2, 6), Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner
suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table” (id. at 7). He further states that
“[b]ased on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of
Fact, [he] does not dispute that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00685-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-25
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/24/2024) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0685V
SONJA JACKMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 24, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Alec Saxe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Sonja Jackman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”).3 Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 4, 2020. Amended Petition at 1-2, 9. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 10, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On October 24, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $60,581.25,
representing compensation in the amounts of $60,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$581.25 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent
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 More than a year later, on February 18, 2022, she filed an amended petition, containing additional detail
and medical record citations. ECF No. 26.

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 5
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 $60,581.25, representing compensation in the amounts of
$60,000.00 for pain and suffering and $581.25 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-00685-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
SONJA JACKMAN,
Petitioner,
No. 21-685 (ECF)
v. Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 12, 2021, Sonja Jackman (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”). Petitioner alleged that she “suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’)” resulting from the administration of an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 4, 2020. Petition at 1.1
On September 10, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding
petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 42.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 Petitioner filed an amended petition (“Amended Petition”) on February 18, 2022, in which she
made the same allegation of suffering a SIRVA resulting from the administration of the vaccine
in question. Amended Petition (ECF No. 26) at 1. The Amended Petition simply provided more
factual details regarding petitioner’s claim.

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $581.25. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $60,581.25, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Sonja Jackman: $60,581.25
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00685-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
JULIA M. COLLISON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Alec Saxe
ALEC SAXE
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) 353-7722
E-mail: Alec.Saxe@usdoj.gov
DATED: October 24, 2024
3