VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00699
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00699
Petitioner: Kristine Law
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2023-08-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-20
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 56863

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristine Law 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) after receiving the influenza vaccine on September 20, 2020. The respondent conceded that Ms. Law was entitled to compensation, agreeing that her injury met the criteria for SIRVA as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. A prior ruling confirmed that her injury had residual effects lasting more than six months. Subsequently, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, recommending an award of $56,862.99. This amount included $55,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,862.99 for out-of-pocket expenses. Ms. Law, who is a competent adult, agreed with the proffered award. The court issued a decision awarding Ms. Law the lump sum payment of $56,862.99, representing compensation for all damages available under the program.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00699-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-27
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/23/2023) regarding 29 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0699V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTINE LAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 23, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Severity Requirement; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 12, 2021, Kristine Law filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on September 20, 2020.3 Petition at 1, ¶ 1.
1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling 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 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 (2012).
3 Petitioner also filed an amended petition with additional detail and medical records citations on March 14,
2022. ECF No. 17.

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 8
Because Petitioner failed to seek treatment for her SIRVA injury during an almost
five-month period (from mid-December 2020 through early May 2021), Respondent
questioned whether Petitioner could satisfy the statutory six-month requirement. ECF No.
20. Petitioner maintains that the symptoms she experienced in May 2021 and later reflect
a continuation of her SIRVA injury. Amended Petition at ¶ 5.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the Petitioner continued to suffer the
residual effects of her alleged SIRVA for more than six months. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)
(statutory six-month severity requirement).
I. Relevant Procedural History
Based upon the prior concern that SIRVA was to be removed from the Vaccine
Injury Table,4 Ms. Law filed her petition without medical records in January 2021. See
Exhibit 3 (signed declaration5 of Petitioner’s counsel). Along with the initial petition, she
filed her vaccine record and signed declaration.6 Exhibits 1-2.
Approximately six months later, Petitioner filed the medical records required under
the Act. Exhibits 4-12, ECF No. 8; see Section 11(c). On December 27, 2021, the case
was activated and assigned to the Special Processing Unit (OSM’s process for attempting
to resolve certain, likely-to-settle claims). ECF No. 12. Less than three months thereafter,
Petitioner filed an amended petition and updated medical records. Exhibits 13-16, ECF
No. 16; Amended Petition, ECF No. 17.
On June 14, 2022, Respondent filed a status report identifying potential issues with
the claim – in particular, the six-month severity requirement, plus questions regarding the
location of her alleged SIRVA injury. ECF No. 20. In response, Petitioner filed a
4 On July 20, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed the removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Proposed Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43794 (July 20, 2020). The proposed rule was finalized six months
later. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Final Rule,
86 Fed. Reg. 6249 (Jan. 21, 2021). Approximately one month later, the effective date for the final rule was
delayed. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Delay of
Effective Date, 86 Fed. Reg. 10835 (Feb. 23, 2021) (delaying the effective date of the final rule until April
23, 2021). On April 22, 2021, the final rule removing SIRVA from the Vaccine Table was rescinded. National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, Withdrawal of Final Rule, 86
Fed. Reg. 21209 (Apr. 22, 2021).
5 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit 3.
6 Petitioner’s declaration also was signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibit
2.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 3 of 8
supplemental signed declaration and motion for a fact ruling on the severity issue. Exhibit
17; Petitioner’s Motion for a Fact Ruling (“Motion”), filed Aug. 14, 2022, ECF Nos. 21, 23.
Respondent filed his response to the motion on November 14, 2022, deferring the
resolution of whether the Petitioner suffered six-months sequela to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record Regarding
Severity (“Response”), ECF No. 26. Recently, Petitioner filed additional updated medical
records. Exhibit 18, filed Feb. 9, 2023, ECF No. 27.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA
for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
requirement).
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-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 4 of 8
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-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 5 of 8
IV. Finding of Fact
I make this finding after a complete review of the record, including all medical
records, statements, declarations, briefing, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
note as follows:
• Petitioner (36 years old at the time of vaccination) had previous diagnoses
of multiple sclerosis, multiple skin lesions, melanoma, sciatica/back pain,
and a right shoulder injury (a fracture of the right humerus with routine
healing) sustained in 2016. See generally, Exhibits 4, 11-12, 16. While
recovering from her right shoulder fracture – the result of a dirt bike
accident, Petitioner reported hiking, running up to 7.5 miles a day, and lifting
weights. Exhibit 4 at 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 38.
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal in her left deltoid on
September 20, 2020. Exhibit 1.
• On October 5, 2020 (15-days post-vaccination), Petitioner visited her
orthopedist and complained of “a constant aching and burning pain located
to the lateral shoulder.” Exhibit 4 at 4. Indicating that her pain had persisted
since her vaccination two weeks earlier, Petitioner described the
vaccination as “very painful,” causing tingling throughout her arm. Id. After
discussing likely diagnoses – “post injection bursitis versus a possible
injection irritating the superior branch of the axillary nerve,” the orthopedist
prescribed physical therapy (“PT”) and recommended anti-inflammatory
medication. Id. at 5.
• At her initial PT session on October 20, 2020, Petitioner reported sharp pain
in her left shoulder since receiving the flu shot. Exhibit 5 at 46. Describing
her pain as decreasing, Petitioner rated its severity as ranging from zero to
six. Id. She was noted to have accompanying limitations in strength and
range of motion (“ROM”). Id.
• Throughout ten additional PT sessions, Petitioner continued to report the
same severity of pain, good improvement, some soreness when working on
her stretching exercises at home, and a setback at one point when she
attempted to lift a box at Costco. Exhibit 5 at 20-45. She was described as
motivated throughout her PT. Id.
• At her last PT session on December 16, 2020, Petitioner reported that her
shoulder was doing well. Exhibit 5 at 20. Although she was currently
5

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 6 of 8
experiencing no pain, however, she again reported that her pain level could
rise to six at its worst. Id. The physical therapist assessed her as “making
good progress” and having “met all goals.” Id. at 21. However, he observed
that Petitioner still lacked full range and overall strength and experienced
difficulties with reaching, lifting, and driving. The therapist instructed
Petitioner to continue her home exercise program (“HEP”). Indicating that
any future PT attendance could be reduced to once a week, the therapist
authorized one more week – through December 23rd, adding that he would
keep Petitioner’s case open to allow for a possible setback. Id.
• Petitioner did not pursue additional treatment for the first four months of
2021. In her supplemental signed declaration, Petitioner insisted that she
chose to focus on her HEP, rather than re-starting PT, because she “would
need to meet [her] health insurance deductible again and did not wish to
pay out of pocket when [she] could perform the same exercises at home.”
Exhibit 17 at ¶ 4. She also “had not yet received [her] Covid vaccination at
the time and was not comfortable continuing to put [her]self at risk during
the pandemic.” Id.
• On May 3, 2021, Petitioner returned to her orthopedist “for recheck of her
left shoulder and to establish care for her lumbar spine.” Exhibit 6 at 4.
Although she described improvement since her last visit – the resolution of
the burning and tingling sensation and “no pain or discomfort with overhead
or behind the back motions” - Petitioner reported that she still felt stiffness
with overhead motion and “ha[d] not regained full range of motion.” Id. Upon
examination, she was observed to have a “limited arc of motion through 160
degrees actively and able to achieve 180 degrees passively with slight
discomfort.” Id. The orthopedist deferred ordering any advanced imaging
and recommended that Petitioner continue her HEP.
• The remainder of Petitioner’s May 3rd visit to the orthopedist was spent
discussing her lumbar pain. Attributing her past sciatica pain to a skiing
incident ten to twelve years ago, she described her current pain “localized
to the left paraspinal region and into the gluteal area.” Exhibit 6 at 4. Rating
her pain level as three out of ten, she indicated it had begun seven weeks
ago, after skiing and running. Id. at 6. The orthopedist prescribed PT for
Petitioner’s back pain. Id. at 5.
• During May and June 2021, Petitioner attended ten additional PT sessions.
Exhibit 6 at 8-49. Although the PT was clearly focused on her back pain,
Petitioner’s left shoulder bursitis was listed as a treating diagnosis, along
6

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 7 of 8
with “[a]cute bilateral low back pain without sciatica.” E.g., id. at 15, 46. At
her initial session on May 12th, Petitioner described her vaccine-related
injury in September 2020, improvement with PT through the end of
December, and continued pain when fastening her bra or reaching
overhead thereafter. Id. at 40. She characterized her lower back pain as
debilitating, located in her lumbar spine, and currently nine out of ten. Id.
Emphasizing the reasons previously provided for her gap in treatment – the fact
that she would have to pay the costs of her PT until satisfying her deductible for 2021,
and fear of COVID exposure due to her unvaccinated status at that time7 - Petitioner
insisted that “the preponderance evidence in this case demonstrates that she suffered
the residual effects or complications of her shoulder injury for more than six (6) months
after vaccination.” Motion at 1. She pointed to the symptoms she exhibited at her last PT
session in December 2020, and her description of her later symptoms as a continuation
of her injury despite the four and one-half months treatment gap. Id. at 5-6.
In his response, Respondent emphasized the progress Petitioner made while
attending PT during October through December 2020. Response at 5. He also noted that
the symptoms Petitioner reported in May 2021 were mild, and also accompanied by
distinguishable lower back pain. Id. at 5-6.
In this case, to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement Petitioner must show
that she suffered symptoms of her alleged SIRVA beyond March 20, 2021. Thus, she
must establish that the symptoms she complained of May 2021, were a continuation of
her 2020 SIRVA injury - or that, at a minimum, that the symptoms she reported in
September 2020 continued through at least until March 20th of the next year.
The above medical entries support the conclusion that Petitioner was experiencing
only mild symptoms by her last PT session in December 2020, approximately three
months post-vaccination. But she continued to exhibit limitations in her ROM and
difficulties performing tasks such as reaching overhead and driving. And when she
returned to the orthopedist in May 2021 (now more than six-months post-vaccination),
she specifically included her left shoulder symptoms as a reason for her visit. Although
those symptoms had become even milder than what she reported in December 2020,
Petitioner reported that they had continued in unabated form.
Unquestionably, the gap in treatment (December 2020 through early May 2021),
is highly relevant to damages, along with the fact that by May Petitioner was experiencing
unrelated lower back pain. These factors not only support the conclusion that Petitioner’s
7 Motion at 3; Exhibit 17 at ¶ 4 (supplemental signed declaration).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/27/23 Page 8 of 8
SIRVA was mild (since she was able to tolerate her discomfort in the gap and self-treat
symptoms), but also underscore the extent to which her subsequent symptoms were
distinguishable (and hence not compensable). However, this does not mean I cannot find
the basic requirement of six months severity met.
A treatment gap or unrelated co-morbidity does not automatically mean severity
cannot be established. Rather, the Vaccine Act requires only that Petitioner in this case
establish that she suffered the residual effects or complications of her alleged SIRVA
injury beyond March 20, 2021. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). It does not demand that the effects
or complications be notably “severe” on their own, or that the symptoms and treatment
continue uninterrupted throughout the six-month period.
The medical records show Petitioner experienced continued, abet mild, discomfort
and limitations in her ROM through early May 2021. Accordingly, 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
As stated in the previous section, Petitioner’s symptoms in this case were mild,
and she simultaneously suffered pain due to unrelated co-morbidities – specifically
sciatica and lower back pain prior to and after vaccination. These matters are relevant
when determining the appropriate amount of compensation – and thus despite my
severity finding, Petitioner must take into account these factors in determining what kind
of damages to seek in this case.
In light of my finding regarding the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, Respondent
should consider his tentative position in this case. Respondent shall file a status report
indicating how he intends to proceed following my ruling by no later than Monday,
March 27, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00699-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-26
Pages: 2
Docket text: **RE-DOCKETED FOR PUBLICATION**PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 5/26/2023) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (fm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 38 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0699V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTINE LAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 26, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Kristine Law filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on September 20, 2020.3 Petition at 1, ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that she
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 Petitioner also filed an amended petition with additional detail and medical records citations on March 14,
2022. ECF No. 17.

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 38 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2
received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her
injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil
action or received compensation for his injury. Id. at ¶¶ 2-5. Additionally, on February 23,
2023, I issued a ruling finding Petitioner had suffered the residual effects of her alleged
SIRVA injury for more than six months. ECF No. 29; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory
six-month severity requirement).
On May 26, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent believes “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for
SIRVA.” Id. at 5.
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-00699-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-02
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/30/2023) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/02/23 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0699V
KRISTINE LAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 30, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Kristine Law filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on September 20, 2020.3 Petition at 1, ¶ 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 26, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. On June 30, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
3 Petitioner also filed an amended petition with additional detail and medical records citations on March 14,
2022. ECF No. 17.

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/02/23 Page 2 of 4
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $56,862.99,
representing compensation in the amounts of $55,000.00 for her pain and suffering and
$1,862.99 for her out-of-pocket expenses. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent
represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a
whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $56,862.99, representing compensation in the amounts of
$55,000.00 for her pain and suffering and $1,862.99 for her unreimbursable
expenses4 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Although Respondent does not indicate whether any portion of these amounts include future pain and
suffering or future expenses, given the facts of the case – including the need for a ruling regarding the
severity requirement, I assume all amounts are actual and not projected.
5 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-00699-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/02/23 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
KRISTINE LAW,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-699V (ECF)
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND SPU
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 12, 2021, Kristine Law (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”
or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine she received on September 20, 2020. Petition at 1.
On May 26, 2023, respondent conceded that entitlement to compensation was appropriate
under the terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 34. On May 26, 2023, Chief Special Master
Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 35.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering and Out-of-Pocket Expenses
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00 in pain and suffering
and $1,862.99 in out-of-pocket expenses. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:21-vv-00699-UNJ Document 44 Filed 08/02/23 Page 4 of 4
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through
a lump sum payment of $56,862.99, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner
agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ ANDREW J. HENNING
ANDREW J. HENNING
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 616-4405
Email: andrew.j.henning@usdoj.gov
DATED: June 30, 2023
1 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move
the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2