VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00816
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00816
Petitioner: Linda Garcia
Filed: 2021-01-28
Decided: 2025-06-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-26
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 138615

AI-assisted case summary:
Linda Garcia filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine she received on October 26, 2020, caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). She sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The medical records indicated that Ms. Garcia experienced pain and reduced range of motion in her right shoulder shortly after the vaccination. Despite some initial ambiguity in the exact timing of symptom onset in the medical records, the Special Master found that Ms. Garcia's own statements and those of her family members supported an onset within 48 hours of the vaccination, satisfying the Table criteria for SIRVA. The court also found that her pain and limited range of motion were confined to the right shoulder and that no other condition explained her symptoms. The ruling on entitlement was issued on January 8, 2025. Subsequently, on June 3, 2025, a decision awarding damages was issued. The parties stipulated to an award of $138,615.70, which included $135,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,615.70 for past unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Garcia was found to be entitled to compensation for her Table SIRVA injury.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00816-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-20
Pages: 12
Docket text: coran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/08/2025) regarding 64 Ruling on Entitlement,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record,, Order on Motion to Amend Schedule, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Cor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-816V
LINDA GARCIA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Filed: January 8, 2025
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Michael A. Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 28, 2021, Linda Garcia 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 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on October 26, 2020, she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition
(ECF No. 1) at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this ruling and decision 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 this Ruling/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).

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 2 of 12
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner has carried her burden of
proof in establishing that she suffered a Table SIRVA injury, and therefore is entitled to
compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This claim was initiated on January 28, 2021, and relevant medical records were
included with the Petition. (ECF No. 1). Throughout the pendency of this matter, Petitioner
continued to file updated medical records as well as affidavits from Petitioner’s family
members supporting her claim. On February 8, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant motion
for a ruling on the record, before Respondent had a chance to provide his formal
assessment. (ECF No. 48). Respondent filed a motion to amend the schedule on
February 21, 2023, indicating that he had finished his review of the records and wished
to discuss informal resolution with Petitioner on the matter. (ECF No. 49). The parties,
however, were unable to reach a settlement and Respondent was ordered to respond to
Petitioner’s motion on April 28, 2023. Respondent filed his response brief on May 12,
2023 (ECF No. 59), and Petitioner filed her Reply on June 5, 2023. (ECF No. 61). The
matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. Relevant Medical History
A. Medical Records
Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical history reveals no evidence of right shoulder
pain or dysfunction. On October 26, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right
deltoid at a Walgreen’s Pharmacy in San Antonio, Texas. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 14 at 3. Petitioner
first sought medical attention 18 days later on November 13, 2020, when she went to San
Antonio Spine complaining of a two-week history of sudden onset of right biceps/triceps
pain. Ex. 3 at 1. An examination revealed that her range of motion (“ROM”) and strength
was decreased. She was advised to use ice and Voltaren gel to manage her pain, and an
MRI was ordered. Id.
Petitioner underwent an MRI on November 30, 2020, and it revealed a full-
thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon with fluid in the subdeltoid bursa and
impingement upon the subacromial space and rotator cuff with fluid in the subacromial
bursa. Ex. 3 at 4. Thereafter, Petitioner was referred to an orthopedist.
On December 15, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Casey Taber, an orthopedist,
complaining of right shoulder pain for about the last six to eight weeks, rating her pain at
8/10. Ex. 13 at 42. Dr. Taber diagnosed Petitioner with a full thickness rotator cuff tear
2

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 3 of 12
and bursitis of the right shoulder and began the process of planning for surgery. Ex. 5 at
1.
On January 8, 2021, Petitioner underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy performed
by Dr. Taber, and his post-operative diagnoses were right shoulder full thickness rotator
cuff tear, impingement with bursitis, acromioclavicular joint arthritis, and bicipital
tenosynovitis. Ex. 5 at 12. Petitioner returned to Dr. Taber on January 19, 2021, for a
post-surgery follow-up, where she was assigned to physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 13. At 9.
Petitioner began PT on February 1, 2021. On June 1, 2021, and after 28 sessions,
Petitioner still had complaints of joint mobility, decreased ROM in her right shoulder, and
pain, which impacted her ability to perform activities of daily living. Ex. 13 at 50. In total,
Petitioner attended 41 PT sessions, ending on August 19, 2021. During a telemedicine
visit on July 8, 2021, DR. Taber diagnosed Petitioner with post-operative adhesive
capsulitis and ordered an MRI, which confirmed no further rotator cuff tear, no major
bursitis, and no significant adhesive capsulitis. Ex. 13 at 62. At Petitioner’s final PT
session, it was noted that her active ROM and strength had improved to within functional
limits, and she was discharged with a home exercise plan (“HEP”). Ex. 26 at 18.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Taber on October 8, 2021, complaining of right shoulder
pain and limited ROM. Ex. 25 at 1. She was diagnosed with post-operative adhesive
capsulitis. Dr. Taber administered a cortisone injection in her right shoulder and instructed
Petitioner to continue with her HEP exercises. Id. at 3. Petitioner also attended three
additional PT sessions in October and November 2021.
Petitioner next saw Dr. Taber on January 25, 2022, approximately one-year post
surgery, again with complain of right shoulder pain and limited ROM. Ex. 25 at 6. Dr.
Taber discussed the possibility of a second shoulder surgery and administered a second
cortisone injection. Id. Similarly, Petitioner again saw Dr. Taber on April 26, 2022, which
a third steroid injection was administered. Ex. 31 at 3. Dr. Taber noted that it was likely
Petitioner had reached maximum improvement in her shoulder absent a second surgical
procedure, noting that there would “likely be a permanent restriction and tightness unless
she elected to proceed with another surgery.” Id. at 4. Petitioner received a fourth steroid
injection on August 30, 2022. Ex. 33 at 4.
Petitioner saw Dr. Taber again on October 11, 2022, complaining of acute onset
right shoulder pain that radiated into her lower arm. Dr. Taber noted that while Petitioner
did have some continued ROM restrictions, the current examination was “most consistent
with cervical radiculopathy and likely involvement of C5-6.” Ex. 37 at 2. X-rays were taken
on that same day which revealed diffuse spondylosis with the most significant arthritic
3

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 4 of 12
changes at the C4-5 and C5-6 level. Id. He further noted that although Petitioner had
suffered post-operative adhesive capsulitis and continued to have some restrictions, her
ROM had improved and that she was not experiencing a lot of pain. He prescribed
Petitioner Flexeril and a Medrol dosepak and referred Petitioner to PT for neck motion
and mobility. Id.
Petitioner attended one PT session before returning to Dr. Taber on November 8,
2022, complaining of the same symptoms as before. Dr. Taber again distinguished her
current cervical radiculopathy from her previous adhesive capsulitis, but that she may be
faced with permanent restrictions in motion and permanent pain or discomfort at this
point. Ex. 37 at 12.
Petitioner’s final visit with Dr. Taber was on January 10, 2023. Again, Dr. Taber
indicated that he believed her post-operative adhesive capsulitis was likely permanent
absent surgical intervention. Ex. 38.
B. Witness Evidence
Petitioner has submitted four witness statements from four individuals in support
of her claim. The first, a declaration, is from Petitioner, and was executed on January 28,
2021. Ex. 36. In it, Petitioner describes how she experienced pain after receiving her flu
vaccination and how she had difficulty sleeping at night, bathing, and going to the
bathroom without assistance. She goes on to describe that she can no longer perform
many activities she previously enjoyed such as playing with her grandchildren, cast a
fishing rod, or do Zumba exercise classes.
The second, an affidavit executed on January 29, 2021, is from Ramon Garcia,
Petitioner’s husband. Ex. 30. He describes how within 24 hours of Petitioner receiving the
flu vaccination, she began to complain of pain and an inability to raise her right arm. He
also describes how Petitioner had difficulty performing daily activities such as driving and
getting dressed and how he had to assist her.
The third, executed on January 29, 2021, is from Jennifer Garcia, Petitioner’s
daughter. Ex. 30-2. She indicates that she saw Petitioner the day after the flu vaccination
holding her arm and asked what was wrong, and Petitioner indicated her shoulder hurt
and she was having a hard time lifting her right arm. She also describes how she noticed
Petitioner having difficultly doing daily activities such as washing dishes and sweeping
the house, and that she had to help her mom comb her hair.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 5 of 12
The final declaration, executed on June 16, 2022, is from Ramon Garcia, Jr.,
Petitioner’s son. Ex. 32. He states that Petitioner was unable to lift or reach for things
after she received her flu vaccination due to pain. He also states that he works for a
pharmacy, has administered flu vaccinations before, and that after she received the
vaccination his mother asked if it was normal to be in as much pain as she was.
III. Parties’ Respective Arguments
Petitioner argues that the medical records and affidavits support her claim that her
shoulder pain began within the 48 hours of receiving the vaccination. (ECF No. 48). The
record, she contends, demonstrates that all applicable QAI’s have been met and all
elements of a Table SIRVA are established. Id. Respondent argues that Petitioner has
failed to prove that her pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccine administration. (ECF No.
59).
IV. Applicable Law
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 6 of 12
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).
V. Analysis
I. Fact Findings – Onset and 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
6

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 7 of 12
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must establish that he 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:
(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
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).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 8 of 12
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 at 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).
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
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184 at 204 (2013) (citing § 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).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 9 of 12
A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation (“QAI”) requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner has no Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury
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
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Here, there is no evidence that Petitioner
suffered from right shoulder pain before her October 26, 2020 vaccination. Respondent
has also not made any argument suggesting he believes that Petitioner had a prior right
shoulder condition or injury. Accordingly, Petitioner has met the first QAI requirement.
2. Pain Occurs with the Specified Timeframe (Onset)
Regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain, in order to meet the definition of a Table
SIRVA, a petitioner must show that she experienced the first symptom or onset within 48
hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)) and that her pain occurred within that
same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI criteria)).
Respondent’s sole objection to entitlement rests on the argument that Petitioner
has failed to establish that her right shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination,
citing to the contemporaneous medical records. Respondent points to three medical
records to argue this point. At her first post-vaccination visit on November 13, 2020,
Petitioner reported that her pain began “two weeks prior” which would place onset four
days after vaccination. Then,at her first orthopedic visit with Dr. Taber on December 15,
2020, she reported that onset was “last month (11/01/20) which would place onset five
days after vaccination. Response at 6. Records from this same visit also indicate that
Petitioner had indicated her shoulder pain had been present for “about 6 to 8 weeks.” Ex.
13 at 153. Respondent argues that six weeks prior to this visit was eight days post-
vaccination, and eight weeks prior was six days before vaccination. Response at 2 n.3.
Finally, Respondent argues that although medical records from visits on November 13,
2020, and December 4, 2020, establish that Petitioner reported shoulder pain, she never
attributed it to her earlier vaccination, but merely that she had shoulder pain that began
two weeks prior to November 13, 2020. Id. at 7.
Notwithstanding Respondent’s request to interpret these medical records in the
most strictly literal sense, I find that the information contained within the records is
9

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 10 of 12
sufficient to establish onset within 48-hours, and that this finding is buttressed by the
affidavits submitted by Petitioner and her family. When Petitioner first saw Dr. Taber, for
example, she placed the start of her symptoms at six to eight weeks prior. Although
Respondent notes the literal dates of six and eight weeks prior to place onset outside of
48 hours, he ignores that this range of time would include October 26-28, 2020, when
onset would be appropriate under the Table. That Dr. Taber later recorded the onset of
symptoms reported at this visit as November 1, 2020, does not appear to have anything
to do with a specific date offered by Petitioner, and rather likely reflects choosing a
convenient date (the first of the month) within the timeframe reported by Petitioner.
Similarly, Respondent’s argument against Petitioner’s reporting of symptoms as
being two weeks prior at her November 13, 2020, medical appointment relies on a records
reading that is far too literal. Petitioner never reported a specific date that would place
onset outside of the 48-hour window. It is likely that Petitioner offered an approximation
of the start of her symptoms because she did not anticipate the need for precise specificity
of onset. Reporting an onset of pain as two weeks could just as easily be interpreted to
be “approximately two weeks,” which would then place onset within the proper timeframe.
Overall, and upon review of the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner has
provided adequate support to establish the onset of her shoulder pain likely occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination. The records reflect a consistent account of pain beginning
shortly after receipt of the October 26, 2020 vaccination, albeit occasionally in a
somewhat vague manner. Further, Petitioner has offered affidavit evidence from herself,
her husband, and two children which all speak to Petitioner experiencing pain and
difficultly moving her right arm the day after vaccination. Accordingly, Petitioner has
established onset in the specified timeframe.
3. Petitioner’s Pain and Limited Range of Motion was Limited to her
Right Shoulder
The specific language of a SIRVA injury contained in the QAI of the Vaccine Injury
Table is that “pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (QAI criteria)).
Upon review of the record, it appears that Petitioner’s pain and limited ROM was limited
to her right shoulder, from the time shortly after vaccination in October 2020, to at least
approximately October 11, 2022, when Petitioner complained of right shoulder pain which
radiated into her lower arm and Dr. Taber diagnosed her with cervical radiculopathy. X-
rays taken from that visit also showed diffuse spondylosis with the most significant arthritic
changes at the C4-5 and C5-6 level. Ex.37 at 2. Thus, for approximately two years,
Petitioner’s pain was limited to only her right shoulder. Respondent also has not offered
10

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 11 of 12
any argument to suggest that Petitioner has failed to carry her burden in establishing this
QAI criteria. Therefore, Petitioner has met the third QAI requirement.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criterion for a Table SIRVA states that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Once again, there is insufficient evidence in the record to suggest an
alternative cause of Petitioner’s right shoulder issues and Respondent does not argue
that there is any evidence of another condition or abnormality. At most, Dr. Taber
attributed more recent right shoulder pain experienced by Petitioner to cervical
radiculopathy rather than her post-surgical adhesive capsulitis. Ex. 37 at 2. However, Dr.
Taber had also noted that Petitioner’s adhesive capsulitis would likely impose permanent
restrictions in motion and permanent pain absent a second surgical procedure. Id. at 12.
At most, the question of how much Petitioner’s lasting pain and reduced ROM is
attributable to one condition versus the other is a matter to be considered in deciding
damages. There is no serious contention that Petitioner’s initial symptoms were brought
on by anything other than her vaccination. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has satisfied
the fourth QAI requirement for entitlement.
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). The overall record
contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in her right
shoulder on October 26, 2020. 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. Petition at 4; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
As stated above, I have found that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain was
within 48 hours of vaccination. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this
requirement). This finding also satisfies the requirement that Petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset occur within the time frame listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48 hours for a Table SIRVA following
receipt of the influenza vaccine). I have also found that Petitioner’s pain and reduced
range of motion was limited to her right shoulder. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). Finally, I find
that there was no condition or abnormality that would explain Petitioner’s symptoms after
vaccination. Id. Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA.
11

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 67 Filed 02/20/25 Page 12 of 12
The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of her
SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer
the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or required
surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement).
Starting from September 24, 2016 (48 hours after vaccination), the records undoubtedly
demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her shoulder injury for more
than six months. Thus, this requirement is also met.
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 Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
A damages order will be entered following the issuance of this ruling to direct the
parties of the next steps in resolving damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00816-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-03
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/02/2025) regarding 73 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 79 Filed 06/03/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-816V
LINDA GARCIA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 2, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Michael A. Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 28, 2021, Linda Garcia 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”) after receiving an influenza vaccination on October 26, 2020.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On January 28, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for her SIRVA. On April 30, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $138,615.70,
representing $135,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $3,615.70 for past
unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
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-00816-UNJ Document 79 Filed 06/03/25 Page 2 of 5
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 $138,615.70, 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.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-00816-UNJ Document 79 Filed 06/03/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
LINDA GARCIA, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-816V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 28, 2021, Linda Garcia (“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”), as amended, alleging that she suffered from a right shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she
received on October 26, 2020. Petition at 1. On May 12, 2023, respondent filed his Rule 4(c)
Report asserting that this case was not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 59. After the
parties briefed entitlement, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement
finding petitioner entitled to compensation on January 8, 2025. ECF No. 64.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $135,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 79 Filed 06/03/25 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 $3,615.70. 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 Chief Special Master Corcoran’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $138,615.70, 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
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,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00816-UNJ Document 79 Filed 06/03/25 Page 5 of 5
JULIA M. COLLISON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Meghan R. Murphy
MEGHAN R. MURPHY
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) 616-4264
meghan.r.murphy@usdoj.gov
DATED: April 30, 2025
3