VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00720
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00720
Petitioner: Laura Lunsford
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2025-05-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-27
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45000

AI-assisted case summary:
Laura Lunsford filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on September 27, 2019. Her past medical history included no reports of left shoulder issues. She received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder on September 27, 2019. While she did not report shoulder pain at an unrelated medication refill appointment on October 1, 2019, she saw her physician on October 11, 2019, reporting left shoulder pain that began on October 2, 2019, approximately five days after vaccination. Medical records noted a restricted range of motion and suspected frozen shoulder. Subsequent examinations and an MRI revealed rotator cuff tenderness, positive impingement signs, and mild tendinosis. The respondent initially opposed compensation, arguing that the medical records did not reflect onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination. However, the court found that the medical records preponderantly established onset of injury within 48 hours of vaccination, noting that the petitioner consistently linked her shoulder pain to the flu shot. The court also found that her pain was limited to her left shoulder and that there was no evidence of another condition or abnormality that would explain her symptoms. The court determined that Laura Lunsford satisfied the requirements for a Table SIRVA and was entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to an award of $45,000.00 for pain and suffering, which was awarded by the court.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00720-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-29
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/26/2024) regarding 49 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-720V
LAURA LUNSFORD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 26, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Franks Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 12, 2021, Laura Lunsford 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 27, 2019. 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.
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-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
On April 6, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation,
because the medical records do not reflect onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of
vaccination. ECF No. 40 at 6-7. On April 28, 2023, Petitioner was ordered to submit a
Motion for a Ruling on the Record, as well as any additional information addressing issues
raised in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and did so that June. ECF No. 34 (“Mot.”).
Respondent opposed the motion on August 8, 2023, reiterating the arguments set forth
in the Rule 4(c) Report. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the
Record Regarding Onset (“Opp.”), ECF No. 45. Petitioner filed a reply on August 15,
2023. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on
the Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 47. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Petitioner’s past medical history includes no reports of left shoulder issues. Petition
at 1. On September 27, 2019, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder. Ex.
9 at 48.
On October 1, 2019, Petitioner saw P.A. Jay Gibson for a medication refill
unrelated to her left shoulder. Ex. 5 at 1, 4, 5. There is no mention of shoulder pain or
discomfort at that time.
Petitioner returned to PA Gibson on October 11, 2019, with reports of left shoulder
pain. Ex. 5 at 1-2. The record notes that the onset of her pain was October 2, 2019, and
“Pain x 1 week after getting flu shot….” Id. It also states Petitioner received the flu injection
and then the pain started. Id. at 2. An examination showed a restricted range of motion,
and Petitioner was assessed with left shoulder joint pain with suspected frozen shoulder.
Id.
On October 14, 2019, Petitioner saw N.P. Nancy Baquirin at urgent care for left
shoulder pain. Ex. 7 at 45. Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain started after receiving
the flu vaccine on October 4, 2019, and that it was a gradual, achy pain at the site of
injection. Id. An examination showed decreased range of motion, however her x-rays
were normal. Id. at 45, 46, 80. Petitioner was prescribed Mobic and a Medrol Dosepak.
Id. at 13.
Petitioner saw orthopedic surgeon Dr. Bradley Dyrstad on November 7, 2019. Ex.
2 at 5. She reported immediate left shoulder pain since October 11, 2019 after receiving
the flu vaccine. Id. An examination showed rotator cuff tenderness and positive
2

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 7
impingement signs. Id. An MRI revealed mild supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis.
Ex. 8 at 231.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Dyrstad on February 14, 2020, reporting continued left
shoulder pain that started after vaccination. Ex. 3 at 12. An EMG was ordered, and Dr.
Dyrstad recommended she continue her at-home exercises. Id. at 15.
On March 26, 2020, Petitioner again saw Dr. Dyrstad for left shoulder pain. Ex. 3
at 6. She reported tenderness in the rotator cuff and positive impingement signs. Id.
Petitioner has submitted an affidavit and declaration in support of her petition. Ex.
1, 12. In her affidavit, she explained that her flu vaccine “stung more than any prior flu
shot [she] had received.” Ex. 1 at 2. In the declaration, she detailed how the pain in her
left shoulder occurred upon vaccination and over “the next two days, the pain began to
progress from a small stabbing sensation to deep throbbing pain in the joint….” Ex. 12 at
1-2.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must establish that 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
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:
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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 7
(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.
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 &
4

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 5 of 7
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. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. 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. 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.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to, 2019
vaccination, stating that she had a flu vaccination and her pain started. Ex. 5 at 2.
Thereafter, she consistently linked her shoulder pain to the flu shot. See Ex. 7 at 45
(record from October 14, 2019 stating that Petitioner’s pain started after a flu vaccine with
subsequent gradual development); Ex. 2 at 5 (record from November 7, 2020 starting
Petitioner’s pain started immediately after her flu vaccination).
Respondent argues that Petitioner inconsistently reported onset of her shoulder
pain, stating in different records that it started five days post-vaccination (Ex. 5 at 1-2),
that it occurred “after” her vaccination (Ex. 7 at 45), and/or that it occurred immediately
after vaccination. Ex. 2 at 5. Further, Petitioner failed to report shoulder pain when she
had an appointment for medication refills October 1, 2019. Ex. 5 at 1, 4, 5. Even so, a
finding of proper onset can be made based on such a record. 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 consistently linked her
shoulder pain to the September 27, 2019, flu vaccine.
Additionally, the relevant medical records show that Petitioner reported shoulder
pain in a relatively timely manner, when measured from the date of vaccination Thus,
Petitioner first began to complain of shoulder pain within thirteen days of the vaccine and
5

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 6 of 7
did not attribute her pain to any other injury or cause. It is common for SIRVA petitioners
to delay seeking treatment, thinking the injury will resolve on its own, especially since
patients are often told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to expect some
soreness and pain for a period of time after. And individuals also often misconstrue the
nature of their injury, and therefore fail to inform treaters of all specific facts relevant to
onset until later. Here, the added detail of onset did not “wait” for months before being
provided but began to be reported in a reasonable time post-vaccination. And Petitioner
affirmatively and repeatedly linked her shoulder pain to the flu vaccine. Further, it is not
unexpected that Petitioner did not raise her shoulder pain on October 1 , as that
appointment was for a specific and unrelated issue, i.e., medication refills.
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.
3. 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. 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, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). 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
September 27, 2019, in the United States. Ex. 9 at 48; 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). Further, Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury
for more than six months. Ex. 3 at 6; see Section 11(c)(1)(D). There is no evidence that
Petitioner has collected a civil award for her injury. Ex. 1 at 7; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of
prior civil award).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 7 of 7
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
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
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00720-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-08
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/07/2025) regarding 55 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 59 Filed 05/08/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-720V
LAURA LUNSFORD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 7, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Frank Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Laura Lunsford 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”) following an influenza vaccine administered on September 27,
2019. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On June 26, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record in support
of her petition. ECF No. 44. Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on
August 8, 2023, and petitioner filed a reply on August 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 45, 47. On
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-00720-UNJ Document 59 Filed 05/08/25 Page 2 of 5
September 26, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a SIRVA.3
On April 3, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation indicating
Petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 for pain and suffering. Respondent’s Proffer on
Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) at 2. 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 Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $45,000.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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
3 Respondent stated in the proffer that they do not object to the proffered award, but reserves the right to
seek review of the entitlement decision. Proffer at 1 n.1.
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-00720-UNJ Document 59 Filed 05/08/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LAURA LUNSFORD,
Petitioner, No. 21-720V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 12, 2021, Laura Lunsford (“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”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) in her left shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on September 27, 2019. Petition at 1-2. On June 26, 2023, petitioner filed a
Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”) in support of her Petition. ECF No. 44.
Respondent filed his Response to Petitioner’s Motion on August 8, 2023, and petitioner filed a
reply on August 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 45, 47. On September 26, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling
on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 49.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s September 26, 2024 entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 59 Filed 05/08/25 Page 4 of 5
I. Item of Compensation
Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 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 of $45,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 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

Case 1:21-vv-00720-UNJ Document 59 Filed 05/08/25 Page 5 of 5
/s/CAMILLE J. WEBSTER
CAMILLE J. WEBSTER
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C.
20044-0146
Direct dial: (202) 307-3241
Email: Camille.Webster@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 3, 2025
3