VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00703
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00703
Petitioner: Amy Miller
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2026-02-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-22
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 127644.52

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 12, 2021, Amy Miller filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 22, 2018 caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

Respondent contested onset and damages, pointing out that Ms. Miller first sought treatment more than three weeks after vaccination and reported two weeks of shoulder pain. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the record as a whole supported onset within 48 hours and that Ms. Miller met the Table SIRVA criteria.

On February 3, 2026, the Chief Special Master awarded a lump sum of $127,644.52, consisting of $125,000.00 for pain and suffering plus $2,644.52 in unreimbursed expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine October 22, 2018 causing right SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset within 48 hours found despite treatment delay. COMPENSATED. Respondent disputed onset and severity; SM found Table SIRVA. Award $125,000 pain/suffering + $2,644.52 expenses = $127,644.52. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition January 12, 2021; decision February 3, 2026.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00703-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-09
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/03/2026) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master, Ruling on Entitlement. ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 10
(cid:36)(cid:48)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:38)(cid:36)(cid:53)(cid:38)(cid:37)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-703V
UNPUBLISHED
AMY MILLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 3, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT and DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Amy Miller filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
October 22, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. I also find that Petitioner is entitled to damages of $127,644.52
(consisting of $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, plus $2,644.52 for unreimbursed
expenses).
1 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-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 10
I. Relevant Procedural History
Following the filing of this case, the parties began settlement discussions on
January 31, 2023. ECF No. 28. On November 3, 2023, Petitioner indicated the parties
reached an impasse in their discussions. ECF No. 38. Petitioner subsequently filed a
motion for a ruling on the record and damages on June 7, 2024. Petitioner’s Motion for a
Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement & Damages (“Mot.”), ECF No. 40. On
October 4, 2024, Respondent filed a combined response and a Rule 4(c) Report.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the
Record Regarding Entitlement and Damages (“Resp.”), ECF No. 41 Petitioner filed a reply
on October 10, 2024. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of Entitlement & Damages
(“Reply”), ECF No. 43. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner’s past medical history shows no history of right shoulder issues prior to
her October 22, 2018 vaccination. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 2 at 32. Over three weeks later
(November 15, 2018), she complained of shoulder pain to her primary care physician. Ex.
2 at 27. Petitioner specifically reported “right arm pain due to FLU shot” for two weeks. Id.
at 27, 28. Physical examination showed “tenderness; [right] shoulder joint area mild TTP”
and continued “rom limited due to discomfort, flexion/internal rotation normal.” Id.
Petitioner was prescribed Mobic for two weeks and was directed to return should the pain
continue. Id. at 28-29.
Two months after, Petitioner saw orthopedic physician, Dr. Bradford S. Knight, in
mid-January 2019 for treatment of continuing right shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 16. Petitioner
reported that after receiving a flu she had “normal soreness for a couple of days from the
shot then developed a deep ache in the shoulder several days later [and] that ache ha[d]
persisted and actually worsened.” Id. This pain continued on a daily basis, and she
developed tingling and numbness of the right hand that occasionally extended to the right
side of the neck. Id. Physical examination showed “pain radiating down into the right hand
with cervical flexion and extension”, reduced range of motion, but full rotator cuff strength.
Id. X-rays were normal, and Dr. Knight’s assessment was “[r]ight shoulder
contusion/subacromial bursitis along with cervical radiculopathy.” Id. The treatment plan
consisted of a home exercise program, referral to physical therapy, to continue the
meloxicam daily, and return in six weeks for a follow up. Id.
Petitioner attended eight physical therapy sessions between January 22 and
February 18, 2019. Ex. 7 at 1–13, 24–27. At the initial session, Petitioner described her
2

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 10
pain as “sharp” and rated 3/10 at best and 6/10 at worst. Id. at 24. The record also notes
that Petitioner “received her Flu shot back in October and [symptoms] start to exacerbate
pretty rapidly.” Her injury date is listed as “10/22/2018”. Id.
On April 11, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Knight for a follow up on her right
shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 15. At this visit, Petitioner claimed to have “only minimal
improvement in the right shoulder pain” and that she was still having some tingling in the
right hand. Id. Physical examination showed full active range of motion and rotator cuff
strength. Id. Petitioner still had mild pain in the right hand. Id. Petitioner’s diagnoses were
right shoulder bursitis and cervical radiculopathy that was “resolving with therapy.” Id. Dr.
Knight performed a corticosteroid inject. Petitioner attended twelve physical therapy
sessions between June 28 and October 3, 2019. Id. at 29–60.
Petitioner saw Dr. Knight again on July 19, 2019, reporting “improvement” with
physical therapy but still experienced pain with certain daily activities. Ex. 6 at 14. A
physical examination showed active forward elevation and abduction with pain, full rotator
cuff strength and possible rotator cuff tear. Id.
Petitioner underwent an MRI on September 6, 2019, which showed right shoulder
subacromial bursitis and a possible rotator cuff tear. Ex. 6 at 13. At a follow-up with Dr.
Knight, Petitioner reported having pain “almost every day” but was “having more good
days than bad.” Id. Dr. Knight discussed treatment options and Petitioner elected to
pursue non operative care. Id. Petitioner received her second steroid injection at that time.
Id.
On December 17, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Knight and reported that her
pain had improved with physical therapy and the last cortisone injection but was still
present. Ex. 6 at 12. Dr. Knight assessed Petitioner with “[r]ight shoulder subacromial
bursitis, proximal biceps tendinitis, [with] symptoms improving slowly.” Id.
On January 13, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Usman Zafar at The Spine Care Center
for right shoulder pain “that has been going on [sic] approximately October 2018.” Ex. 8
at 8. Petitioner reported that her pain was primary located in the right shoulder and “does
NOT” radiate from its primary location. Id. The pain was described as an “aching” with a
pain level between 0/10 up to a 7/10 at worst. Id. Dr. Zafar’s assessment was
“[i]ncomplete rotator cuff tear or rupture of right shoulder” and performed a steroid
injection. Id. at 9.
On July 28, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Knight regarding continued shoulder
pain, rating it as a 4/10. Ex. 6 at 24. Petitioner reported that she had no pain for about six
3

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 10
weeks after her last injection, but the pain had gradually returned. Id. Physical
examination demonstrated mild tenderness of her shoulder, but full active range of motion
and cuff strength. Id. She was diagnosed with incomplete rotator cuff tear or rupture of
right shoulder. Id.
On August 19, 2020, Dr. Knight performed a right shoulder debridement, distal
clavicle excision, and subacromial decompression. Ex. 9 at 24–39. Petitioner had an
orthopedic follow up on August 25, 2020. Ex. 6 at 22. Dr. Knight noted that Petitioner was
“progressing as expected.” Id. Petitioner was noted as having “[f]ull active and passive
range of motion.” Id.
Petitioner attended 25 additional physical therapy sessions between August 25
and December 29, 2020. Ex. 7 at 64–117. At Petitioner’s final session she reported her
pain levels as 0/10 at best and 4/10 at worst. Id. at 113. She also had a full range of
motion and only “slightly less strength when compared to L[eft] shoulder.” Id. at 113-14.
Petitioner filed two declarations in support of her claim. Ex. 3, 12. She confirmed
she received a vaccination on October 22, 2018, in her right shoulder, and that she never
had a prior right shoulder injury. Ex. 3 at 1. Petitioner also stated that her shoulder pain
began the night after her flu vaccine. Ex. 12 at 1. Further, she was gold the residual
soreness could linger, and “to wait it out for two weeks….” Id.
III. Legal Standards for SIRVA
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must preponderantly
prove 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 she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is
presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 10
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
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 10
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 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).
IV. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
Review of the entire record reveals that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
A. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that would
Explain her Symptoms
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.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner meets this
criterion. I find that she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her symptoms.
B. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of her
Vaccination
The record preponderantly establishes onset of injury close-in-time to the October
22, 2018 vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on November 15, 2018,
noting she had been experiencing right arm pain for two weeks due to a flu vaccine. Ex.
2 at 27. 28. She also described the pain as normal soreness for a few days after the
vaccination that developed into a deep ached several days thereafter, which persisted
and worsened. Ex. 6 at 16. Further, she linked her shoulder pain to this same vaccination
on multiple occasions. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 28 (record from November 15, 2018, noting right
arm pain due to the flu vaccine); Ex. 6 at 16 (record from January 18, 2019 reporting
normal soreness after the vaccine that developed into pain that “persisted and actually
worsened”).
Respondent argues that Petitioner sought treatment more than three weeks after
her vaccination, and reported two weeks of shoulder pain. Resp. at 6. She also reported
developing a deep ache several days after the vaccine. Id.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 10
While there are some inconsistencies in Petitioner’s reporting, when the record is
viewed in its entirety there is ample evidence to find proper onset began near in time to
the vaccination. Further, Program petitioners are not required to marshal records setting
forth with chronographic specificity the precise day and hour that their onset manifested.
As noted above, Petitioner reported pain fairly quickly after her vaccination, and
repeatedly linked her shoulder pain to the October 22, 2018, vaccination.
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
C. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this
aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest otherwise.4
D. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim.
E. 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). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on October
22, 2018, in the United States. Ex. 1; 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. Ex. 3; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
4 While there are references to pain and tingling in Petitioner’s hand (Ex. 6 at 15), later records definitively
state her pain “does NOT” radiate from its primary location of the right shoulder. Ex. 8 at 8.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 8 of 10
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.
V. Damages
Petitioner is seeking $130,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,664.52 for medical
expenses. Mot. at 12. Respondent did not propose a specific amount for pain and
suffering, but does not dispute the $2,664.52 for medical expenses. Resp. at 11-12.
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the injury’s severity and duration.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and
non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However,
I base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
The record establishes that Ms. Miller’s SIRVA involved moderate initial pain, with
reports to treaters of immediate symptoms within three weeks of vaccination. Petitioner
characterized her pain as “normal soreness” for a few days after the vaccination that soon
developed into a deep ache that persisted and worsened. She also displayed ROM losses
and impingement within the first two months that persisted over time. Partitioner’s pain
was described as 3/10 at best, and 6/10 at worst during her first round of physical therapy
in the winter of 2019. Ex. 7 at 1-13, 24-27.
Petitioner showed steady, if slow, improvement throughout 2019, especially
following her periodic cortisone injections. See Ex. 6 at 15 (record of a cortisone injection
on April 11, 2019); Ex. 6 at 14 (record from July 19, 2019 reporting “improvement” with
physical therapy); Ex. 6 at 13 (record from September 6, 2019 stating Petitioner had pain
“almost every day” but “more good days than bad”). Following her third steroid injection,
Petitioner also reported she was pain-free for about six weeks, but by July 28, 2020 her
pain had gradually returned. Ex. 6 at 24. There are also several gaps in treatment during
this period, including several two-month gaps and a six-month period between January
and July of 2020, as noted by Respondent. Resp at 9-10. Petitioner ultimately underwent
surgical intervention in August of 2020. By December of 2020, she showed significant
improvement in her right shoulder, with pain levels described as 0-4/10, full range of
motion, and only slightly less strength compared to her left shoulder.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 9 of 10
Overall, Petitioner’s treatment occurred over 26 months, consisted of 45 physical
therapy sessions, three cortisone injections, an MRI, and surgery. Her pain was described
as 3-7/10 initially, with slow, steady improvement until her surgery in August 2020.
Petitioner defends her pain and suffering as reasonable, noting that she treated
for 26 months, had three cortisone injections, and significant physical therapy. She also
has identified some comparable cases, citing to Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-0745V, 2021 WL 2652688 (Fed. Cl. May 28, 2021) (awarding $125,000 for pain
and suffering) and Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0978V, 2024 WL
1071877 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 8, 2024) (awarding $130,000 for pain and suffering). Mot. at 10-
12.
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s injury was not as severe as those in Amor or
Smith. Resp. at 10-11. Respondent also cites to one case, McCabe, as comparable.
McCabe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1916V, 2021 WL 6755494 (Fed. Cl.
29, 2021) (awarding $110,000 for pain and suffering). In McCabe, the petitioner
underwent arthroscopic surgery, had two MRIs, two steroid injections, and eighty physical
therapy sessions over two years. Id. at *9-10. However, his injury was not as severe as
Petitioner’s because his pain levels were not as consistent or consistently high as in the
present case. Id.
The Amor case is the closest comparable, as it balances the severity of the SIRVA
with Petitioner’s course of treatment. That petitioner had five cortisone injections and
underwent surgery over approximately 20 months with similar gaps in treatment due to
the effectiveness of the cortisone injections. However, the Amor petitioner also attended
far fewer physical therapy sessions - and reported more significant pain levels (6-7/10)
compared to Ms. Miller’s moderate levels of 3-7/10.
Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury, the course of treatment, and
based on the record as a whole, I find that $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering is
reasonable and appropriate in this case.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the
record as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, I award
Petitioner a lump sum payment of $127,644.52 (representing $125,000.00 for actual
pain and suffering and $2,644.52 for unreimbursed medical expenses) to be paid
9

Case 1:21-vv-00703-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/09/26 Page 10 of 10
through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner.
This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would
be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the 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
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
10