VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00713
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00713
Petitioner: Mary Ann Nguyen
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2024-05-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-27
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 116290

AI-assisted case summary:
Mary Ann Nguyen filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on September 27, 2020. She further alleged that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. The respondent conceded that her alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on October 27, 2023, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 26, 2024, the respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation, indicating that Petitioner should be awarded $112,500.00 in pain and suffering and $3,790.50 in past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner agreed with the proffered award. On May 1, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages, awarding Petitioner a lump sum payment of $116,290.50 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00713-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-18
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/13/2023) regarding 32 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-713V
MARY ANN NGUYEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 13, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Franks Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Adam N. Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 12, 2021, Mary Ann Nguyen (“Petitioner”) 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 shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
she received in her right shoulder on September 27, 2020.3 Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The
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 The petition indicates two different dates of vaccination. In separate paragraphs, it notes that Petitioner
received the flu vaccination at issue on August 27, 2020, and September 27, 2020. Pet. ¶¶ Preamble, 4.
However, Petitioner’s vaccination record, affidavit, and medical records consistently indicate she received
the subject vaccination on September 27, 2020. Exs. 1-2, 7 at 7, 8 at 22. I therefore do not find this error to
be material to Petitioner’s claim and it does not require further discussion – and in any event the record
preponderantly establishes that Petitioner received the subject flu vaccination on September 27, 2020.

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 6
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more
likely than not administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder, as alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed her petition and affidavit in support of her claim on January 12,
2021. ECF No. 1. On March 22, 2021, she filed her vaccination record from CVS
pharmacy, medical records, and a status report indicating she was awaiting additional
records. ECF Nos. 8-9. Petitioner filed some outstanding medical records and a statement
of completion on June 7, 2021. ECF Nos. 10-11. Additional medical records were filed on
February 2, 2022, along with a status report indicating another set of records would be
forthcoming. See ECF Nos. 14, 16-17. The next day (February 3, 2022), Petitioner filed
a medical record exhibit and a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 18-19.
During the time this case was still undergoing Pre-Assignment Review (“PAR”), I
entered an order noting that Petitioner had failed to satisfy her burden to establish site of
vaccination. ECF No. 21. I therefore ordered her to provide a vaccination administration
record. Id. On August 31, 2022, Petitioner submitted a status report describing her
unsuccessful efforts to obtain such a record from her pharmacy. ECF No. 24. Petitioner
noted that in August 2022, she “received documentation from CVS stating that they do
not have any additional records indicating into which arm CVS administered the shot.” Id.
at 2. She continued, “[w]ithout evidence from the provider, Petitioner will rely upon her
sworn testimony and subsequent medical records” to establish site of vaccination. Id. The
case was subsequently reassigned to SPU. ECF Nos. 25-26.
On April 24, 2023, Respondent filed a status report regarding his informal
assessment of the claim. ECF No. 30. Respondent did not describe issues that would
preclude this case from staying in SPU, but indicated that “Petitioner has been unable to
provide records from CVS pharmacy showing in which arm her vaccine was
administered.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 2; ECF No. 24). Respondent also estimated this case
would not undergo medical review until after a year of activation. Id.
I have determined that while this case awaits medical review, a factual ruling
regarding the site of vaccination is required, and will assist in its ultimate disposition. Thus,
the issue of the site of Petitioner’s September 27, 2020 flu vaccination is now ripe for
resolution.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 6
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her
right arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later 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 & Human 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
3

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 6
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 & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human 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. Finding of Fact
The following finding of fact is based on a complete review of the record, including
the petition, all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
highlight the following:
• Ex. 1 ¶ 2, Petitioner’s affidavit, indicating she received a flu vaccine on
September 27, 2020, in her right arm. Within 24 hours, the “sharp pain in
[her] right shoulder increased to severe shoulder pain . . . .” Id. ¶ 4. By 48
hours post vaccination, she had difficulty sleeping on her right side and
getting dressed. Id.
• Ex. 7 at 8, a record of Petitioner’s October 8, 2020 visit to Dr. Poage for
shoulder pain noting that she had “some right shoulder pain” present “ever
since” she got “a flu shot in the right upper arm.” Id. at 8, 11. Her
musculoskeletal exam was positive for right shoulder pain and limited ROM.
Id. at 12. Petitioner was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis of the right
shoulder. Id. at 8, 12; see also Ex. 8 at 7, 10-12.
• Ex. 8 at 17, a record of Petitioner’s October 29, 2020 visit with Dr. Driscoll
complaining of right shoulder pain that started “a few days after” her flu shot
“about [one] month ago.” Dr. Driscoll assessed Petitioner with acute pain of
the right shoulder. Id. at 19.
• Ex. 10 at 42-43, an October 30, 2020 MRI record of Petitioner’s right
shoulder showed right shoulder bursitis.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 5 of 6
• Ex. 5 at 9, a November 2, 2020 follow-up visit with Dr. Elenz regarding
Petitioner’s recent MRI. Dr. Elenz Petitioner had “vaccine injection-related
right shoulder subacromial bursitis.” Id. Dr. Elenz administered a cortisone
injection to Petitioner’s right shoulder and recommended PT. Id.
• Ex. 5 at 7, a December 17, 2020 follow-up visit with Dr. Elenz, noting that
Petitioner’s right shoulder symptoms were “symptomatic again.” She
received a second cortisone injection in her right shoulder and Dr. Elenz
recommended continued PT.
• Ex. 9 at 7, a record from Petitioner’s April 28, 2021 visit with Dr. Brotzman
showed Petitioner complained of right shoulder pain and that in September
2020, “she noticed a gradual onset of right shoulder pain which she
attributes to receiving a flu vaccine in the wrong part of her arm.” Dr.
Brotzman diagnosed Petitioner with “ongoing right shoulder bursitis from
September 2020 through April 2021.” Id. at 8.
• Ex. 9 at 10, a record from Petitioner’s June 23, 2021 follow-up with Dr.
Brotzman for issues including right shoulder pain. Exam of right shoulder
showed improved ROM and mild discomfort with flexion at the right deltoid.
Id. at 11.
• Ex. 10 at 34, an October 20, 2021 visit with Dr. Rawson noting Petitioner’s
right shoulder pain “began [one year] prior after an influenza vaccination in
that arm.” Dr. Rawson assessed Petitioner with adhesive capsulitis of the
right shoulder, performed a brisement procedure of the right shoulder joint,
and referred her to PT. Id. at 35, 51-57.
• Ex. 11 at 59, PT records from October 26, 2021, documenting that “after the
flu shot in Sept[ember] 2020, [Petitioner] felt ongoing pain in [her] right
shoulder.” Therapeutic exercises and treatment were performed on
Petitioner’s right side during each session. Id. at 61-62; see also id. at 5-58
(Petitioner’s PT treatment on the right side through December 2021).
• Ex. 10 at 29-30, a December 14, 2021 follow-up with Dr. Rawson for right
shoulder pain consistent with adhesive capsulitis.
Based on the above evidence, it appears more likely than not that Petitioner’s
September 27, 2020 flu vaccine was administered in her right shoulder, as alleged. The
5

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/18/23 Page 6 of 6
record of Petitioner’s October 8, 2020 visit to Dr. Poage for right shoulder pain present
ever since receiving a flu shot in her right arm (Ex. 7 at 8, 11-12), is particularly
persuasive. This record is from only approximately 11 days post-vaccination, and is the
most contemporaneous record other than the vaccine administration record itself that is
silent as to site.
I acknowledge that the vaccine administration record itself does not memorialize
the site of the administration of Petitioner’s flu vaccine. Ex. 2 at 11. However, all other
medical records and Petitioner’s affidavit support a finding that the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s right arm. Moreover, in addition to Petitioner’s self-reports to
treaters and her own statements in her affidavit, Petitioner’s medical records consistently
document diagnostic testing, physical therapy exercises, and treatment of Petitioner’s
right shoulder.
V. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Tuesday, September 12, 2023, a status
report concerning how he intends to proceed, or how much additional time is needed for
this case to undergo Respondent’s medical review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00713-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/27/2023) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-713V
MARY ANN NGUYEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 27, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Franks Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Adam N. Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Mary Ann Nguyen 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
on September 27, 2020. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered
the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 27, 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, ECF No. 36. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is
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).

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 2
consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent
further agrees that Petitioner “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-00713-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-01
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/27/2024) regarding 48 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-713V
MARY ANN NGUYEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 27, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Franks Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Adam Nemeth Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Mary Ann Nguyen 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to her
on September 27, 2020. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months,
and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of
an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 27, 2023, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 37. On March 26, 2024, 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).

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 5
filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be
awarded $112,500.00 in pain and suffering and $3,790.50 in past unreimbursable
expenses. Proffer at 1-2, ECF No. 47. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See 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 $116,290.50 for pain and suffering and past 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.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
MARY ANN NGUYEN, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-713V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 12, 2021, Mary Ann Nguyen (“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 vaccine she received on September 27, 2020. Petition at 1. On October 27, 2023,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating
that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table
injury, and on December 5, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement
finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 36, 40.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $112,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:21-vv-00713-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/24 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 $3,790.50. 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 following1: a lump sum payment of $116,290.50 in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Mary Ann Nguyen: $116,290.50
1 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-00713-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/24 Page 5 of 5
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
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Adam N. Muffett
ADAM N. MUFFETT
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Torts Branch, Civil Division
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 860-9935
Adam.muffett@usdoj.gov
Date: March 26, 2024
3