VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00828
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00828
Petitioner: Evelyn Ashford
Filed: 2021-02-01
Decided: 2025-08-19
Vaccine: Td
Vaccination date: 2020-11-22
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 1, 2021, Evelyn Ashford filed a petition alleging that a tetanus-diphtheria vaccination administered on November 22, 2020 caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. She was 50 years old at vaccination.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the record did not support the required Table onset or an off-Table causal link. Ms. Ashford had no prior right shoulder complaint documented, but when right shoulder symptoms were first noted several weeks after vaccination, the record did not connect them to the vaccine and described mild posterior scapular tenderness with normal range of motion. Later records attributed pain to lifting a potted plant and gardening. By early 2021, symptoms included radiation down the arm, hand numbness, neck and spine pain, and diagnoses such as adhesive capsulitis, rhomboid strain, and cervical radiculopathy; physical therapy focused on the neck and cervical spine led to improvement.

The Special Master gave greater weight to the contemporaneous medical records than to later litigation statements and concluded that Ms. Ashford had not shown onset within 48 hours or vaccine causation. The petition was dismissed on August 19, 2025, without compensation.

Theory of causation field:
Td vaccine on November 22, 2020, age 50, alleged right SIRVA. DISMISSED. Chief Special Master Corcoran found insufficient proof of onset within 48 hours and insufficient causal link. Records first noted right shoulder pain weeks later, with normal ROM, later reports attributed symptoms to lifting a potted plant/gardening, and later diagnoses included adhesive capsulitis, rhomboid strain, and cervical radiculopathy with neck/radiating symptoms. No compensation. Decision August 19, 2025. Attorney: Leah V. Durant.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00828-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-19
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/19/2025) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0828V
EVELYN ASHFORD,
Petitioner, Chief Special Master Corcoran
v.
Filed: August 19, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Joseph Douglas Leavitt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ENTITLEMENT DECISION1
On February 1, 2021, Evelyn Ashford filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”).3 Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving a tetanus
diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine on November 22, 2020. Amended Petition at 1, ¶ 1, 12.
However, the record in this case contains insufficient evidence to establish the pain
onset within the timeframe required for a Table SIRVA, or even to support any causal link
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).
3 Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 15, 2022, providing additional detail and medical record
citations, and correcting stating the exact vaccine she received. ECF No. 28.

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 2 of 10
between Petitioner’s right shoulder pain and the vaccination she received. See 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(a)XIV(B) & (c)(10)((ii) (2017) (requiring pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination);
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three-
pronged test for actual causation). And despite due opportunity, Petitioner has not
provided the preponderant evidence needed to overcome these deficiencies. I therefore
DENY entitlement in this case, and the matter is dismissed.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. Ashford initially filed only a cursory petition in this case, lacking a detailed
discussion of her injury or the accompanying affidavit and medical records required by
the Vaccine Act. See Section 11(c). Almost two years later, she filed her vaccine record,
medical records from her primary care provider (“PCP”) and orthopedist, and an
electronically-signed declaration4 addressing the lack of a prior civil award. Exs. 1-4, filed
Dec. 15, 2022, ECF No. 18. In an accompanying motion (aimed at obtaining a finding that
the pre-assignment review (“PAR”) requirements had been met), Petitioner
acknowledged the rushed filing of her petition in early 2021 (occasioned by the then-
proposed removal of SIRVA from the Vaccine Injury Table).5 Motion for Appropriate
Relief, filed Dec. 15, 2022 (ECF No. 20). I subsequently noted all deficiencies in
Petitioner’s filings, including the need for a physical signature on her declaration. Order,
issued Feb. 9, 2023, ECF No. 21.
Eight months later (and more than 30 months after the case was initiated),
Petitioner filed additional medical records (most already provided in Exhibits 1-3), a more
detailed signed declaration,6 and a list of her medical providers. Exs. 4-8, filed Aug. 23,
2023, ECF No. 25; PAR Medical History Questionnaire, ECF No. 26. The following day,
she provided a more detailed petition with the appropriate medical records citations. ECF
No. 28. On August 28, 2023, the case was activated and assigned to the “Special
Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution of cases deemed likely to
settle). ECF No. 29.
On March 28, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, opposing
compensation. ECF No. 35. Emphasizing “the apparent conflict between [P]etitioner’s
4 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Ex. 1.
5 On July 20, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed the removal of SIRVA from the
Vaccine Injury Table. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury
Table, Proposed Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43794 (July 20, 2020). On April 22, 2021, the final rule removing
SIRVA from the Vaccine Table was rescinded. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions
to the Vaccine Injury Table, Withdrawal of Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 21209 (Apr. 22, 2021).
6 The declaration was signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Ex. 4.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 3 of 10
initial explanation regarding her onset of pain and her explanation provided after litigation
had begun” (id. at 7), Respondent maintained that “[P]etitioner has not provided
preponderant evidence that the onset of her alleged right shoulder pain occurred within
forty-eight hours of her November 22, 2020 Tdap vaccination” (id. at 8). He also insisted
that Petitioner could not satisfy the Table SIRVA criterion regarding the location of her
symptoms because “her medical records repeatedly describe symptoms outside of her
shoulder.” Id. at 8. And he questioned whether there are additional medical records, not
yet filed, specifically those related to Petitioner’s neck and cervical issues. Id. at 5 n.2, 6
n.4. Based upon these deficiencies, Respondent asked that I dismiss Petitioner’s claim.
Id. at 10.
On November 15, 2024, a call was held with the parties to discuss Respondent’s
objections. I noted my plan to issue this Order to Show Cause, and Petitioner was
encouraged to dismiss her claim or file any additional evidence while awaiting my
subsequent order. I issued the Order, allowing Petitioner a final chance to obtain and file
the evidence needed to support her allegations, on May 15, 2025. ECF No. 36.
In her response, filed on August 15, 2025, Petitioner stated that “[n]o additional
records are available or will be filed in this case.” Petitioner’s Response to the Order to
Show Cause and Motion for a Ruling on the Current Record, filed Aug. 15, 2025, ECF
No. 38. Emphasizing the “great disruption in the ordinary process of filing SIRVA cases”
caused by the Secretary’s previously-proposed removal of SIRVA from the Table,
counsel’s diligent efforts to provide all required medical records thereafter, and the
evidence provided by her 2023 sign declaration, she requested that I “issue a ruling on
entitlement based on the current record.” Id. at 2-3. The matter is now ripe for
adjudication.
II. Applicable Legal Standards
Under Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that all requirements for a petition set forth in section
11(c)(1) have been satisfied. A petitioner may prevail on her claim if the vaccinee for
whom she seeks compensation has “sustained, or endured the significant aggravation of
any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table).
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). According to the most recent version of the 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). The specific criteria establishing a SIRVA are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
3

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 4 of 10
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). 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) (additional requirements set forth in the Qualifications and Aids
to Interpretations (“QAI”)). If a petitioner establishes that the vaccinee has suffered a
“Table Injury,” causation is presumed.
If, however, the vaccinee suffered an injury that either is not listed in the Table or
did not occur within the prescribed time frame, petitioner must prove that the administered
vaccine caused injury to receive Program compensation on behalf of the vaccinee.
Section 11(c)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii). In such circumstances, petitioner asserts a “non-Table or
[an] off-Table” claim and to prevail, petitioner must prove her claim by preponderant
evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or
‘more probable than not’ causation.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279-80 (referencing Hellebrand
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 999 F.2d 1565, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal
Circuit has held that to establish an off-Table injury, petitioners must “prove . . . that the
vaccine was not only a but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing
about the injury.” Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 5 of 10
Cir 1999). Id. at 1352. The received vaccine, however, need not be the predominant
cause of the injury. Id. at 1351.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that petitioners “must show ‘a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that the vaccine was a
substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting
Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Circuit
adds that "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. The Federal Circuit subsequently reiterated
these requirements in its Althen decision. See 418 F.3d at 1278. Althen requires a
petitioner
to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination
brought about her injury by providing: (1) a medical theory
causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a
logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing
of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.
Id. All three prongs of Althen must be satisfied. Id.
Finding a petitioner is entitled to compensation must not be “based on the claims
of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section
13(a)(1). Further, contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be accurate and
complete in their recording of all relevant information as to petitioner’s medical issues.
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993, F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Testimony offered after the events in questions is considered less reliable than
contemporaneous reports because the need for accurate explanation of symptoms is
more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993).
III. Relevant Factual History
There are no medical record entries showing Petitioner ever complained of right
shoulder pain prior to vaccination, but she received treatment for left shoulder pain in
5

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 6 of 10
2017 and 2019.7 She also underwent surgery on her left ankle in late 2020.8 Four days
after this event, on November 22, 2020, Petitioner (age 50) received the Td vaccine in
question intramuscularly in her right deltoid at a CVS pharmacy. Ex. 1 at 7.
Petitioner first mentioned right shoulder pain while discussing her overall health
during a physical several weeks later, on December 11, 2020. Ex. 3 at 6. She did not,
however, mention the Td vaccine she had received, or provide any details regarding her
pain onset or possible cause. Id. Upon examination, her primary care provider (“PCP”)
observed “mild posterior scapular tenderness[9] and normal ROM[10] and strength, [and]
no joint enlargement or tenderness.” Ex. 3 at 9. Although he did not provide any opinion
on the source of Petitioner’s pain, the PCP prescribed Voltaren gel, presumedly for this
condition. Id. at 10. It was noted that Petitioner also received a shingles vaccine during
the visit - administered intramuscularly in her left deltoid - and had received an influenza
vaccine “elsewhere on 09/10/2020.” Id. at 12.
During the subsequent week, Petitioner attended physical therapy (“PT”) sessions
for her left foot. Ex. 2 at 74-78. There is no mention of right shoulder pain in the records
from these sessions. Id.
On December 21, 2020, Petitioner (noted to be left-handed) sought orthopedic
care for right shoulder and upper and lower arm pain. Ex. 2 at 61. Estimating her current
pain level as eight out of ten, she reported a pain onset of December 3, 2020, after she
lifted a “heavy potted plant” that she had decorated with Christmas ornaments. Id.
Petitioner also described an increase in her right shoulder pain “after doing a lot of
gardening.” Id. The record contained a brief mention of the treatment Petitioner previously
received for “left shoulder rotator cuff partial tear.” Id. (emphasis added).
After reviewing x-rays taken that day and observing limited active and passive
ROM, “no pain over [the] AC joint or bicipital groove, . . . [and] positive tenderness in the
7 Orthopedic records show Petitioner received a steroid injection, underwent a left shoulder MRI, and
discussed the possibility of shoulder surgery in 2017. Ex. 2 at 66-67, 70-71 (record dated 11/27/2017). PCP
records from 2019, reference Petitioner’s left shoulder pain, noting that she was receiving orthopedic care.
Ex. 3 at 37-43 (record dated 12/6/2019).
8 In the medical record from this PCP visit, Petitioner was described as wearing a boot on her left foot
following surgery. Ex. 3 at 13 (record dated 11/18/2020).
9 The scapula is “the flat, triangular bone in the back of the shoulder, articulating with the ipsilateral clavicle
and humerus, called also shoulder blade. DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“Dorland’s”) at
1673 (32th ed. 2012).
10 ROM stands for “range of motion.” MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 38 (16th ed. 2020).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 7 of 10
mid body of the right rhomboid,[11]” the orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with adhesive
capsulitis and rhomboid strain. Ex. 2 at 62. Although the orthopedist offered to administer
an intra-articular injection, Petitioner expressed her preference for a trigger point injection
into the rhomboid area as she characterized it “is the more tender area.” Id. After
administering this injection, the orthopedist instructed Petitioner to rest and ice her
shoulder for 24 hours and provided her with a prescription for PT. Id.
Petitioner attended three more PT session for her left foot in December 2020. Ex.
2 at 81-86. At her next PT session on January 8, 2021, she requested a right shoulder
assessment. Id. at 87. The therapist observed “limited mobility likely secondary to
muscular strain,” and no evidence of rotator cuff pathology. Id. at 90. She attended three
additional PT session in January 2021, for her right shoulder pain. Id. at 93-101.
On January 25, 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist for a follow-up
appointment, reporting that the trigger point injection into her rhomboid “only provided
temporary relief” and she was “now starting to experience radiating symptoms down the
arm including numbness into the hand.” Ex. 2 at 53. In this record, it was again noted that
Petitioner’s pain began on December 3, 2020, after lifting a heavy potted plant. Id. The
orthopedist ordered an MRI and recommended that she undergo further assessment of
her radiating symptoms. Id. at 55.
Performed on February 2, 2021, the MRI revealed findings that included mild
inflammation of the subacromial/subdeltoid bursa and no evidence of a rotator cuff tear.
Ex. 2 at 47. On the MRI worksheet, Petitioner’s symptoms were described as pain in the
posterior joint to the elbow, some numbness and popping, and limited ROM. Id. at 107.
After attending several additional PT sessions in February (Ex. 2 at 2 at 111-16),
Petitioner sought treatment from her PCP on February 16, 2021, for “diffuse lateral and
posterior shoulder pain worse with any movement, . . . radiating down the back of the
upper arm to the elbow” (Ex. 7 at 3). For the first time, she attributed her right shoulder
pain to the Td vaccine she received in November 2020. Emphasizing Petitioner’s very
active use of her arms while working as a small animal surgeon, the PCP noted her
shoulder had been “increasingly painful [the] last few days,” resulting in her “crying after
work d/t pain.” Id. The medical record mistakenly states that Petitioner received a right
shoulder joint steroid injection in addition to the trigger point injection received on
December 21, 2020, but correctly recounts the February 2, 2021 MRI results. Id. at 3, 6;
see Ex. 2 at 62 (record regarding injection). Reported as having an appointment already
scheduled (id. at 3), Petitioner was instructed to see a neurologist, and an orthopedist if
her pain worsened. Id. at 6.
11 The major and minor rhomboid muscles extending over the seventh cervical vertebrae to the fifth thoracic
vertebra. Dorland’s at 1211-12.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 8 of 10
On March 11, 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist, complaining of right-
sided neck, spine, and shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 43. Characterized as sharp pain that began
on January 18, 2021, she estimated its severity as seven out of ten. Id. This record does
not include any information related to a diagnosis or prescribed treatment.
During multiple PT sessions in March and April 2021, Petitioner continued to show
improvement, reporting pain primarily while performing tasks at work. Ex. 2 at 8-23, 25-
27. Described as working in a lab (id. at 8), Petitioner reported “no major issues outside
of work tasks” on March 18, 2021 (id. at 12).12 She attributed improvements gained during
PT sessions in April 2021, to a “shift to some focus on the neck” (id. at 18) and cervical
spine (id. at 22), and “the inclusion of the cervical exercises” (id. at 26).
In the record from her next orthopedic appointment on May 3, 2021, the orthopedist
noted that Petitioner had been treated for cervical radiculopathy by both his team and
physician’s assistant (“PA”) Burke. Ex. 2 at 59. And an additional diagnosis of “[o]ther
spondylosis with radiculopathy, cervical region” was added to prior diagnoses: adhesive
capsulitis and right shoulder pain. Id. at 24. Petitioner reported that that her “tingling has
diminished significantly but she is continued to note a stiffness sensation in her right
shoulder.” Id. at 59. After declining a steroid injection because she had recently received
the COVID vaccine, Petitioner was told to continue her PT, and request a steroid injection
in two to three weeks if her symptoms continued. Id. at 60.
At a PT session on May 14, 2021, Petitioner reported that she “[wa]s not getting
any of the higher intensity pain.” Ex. 2 at 28. At her next session on May 21, 2021, “she
still note[d] some discomfort in the back of her shoulder blade that is painful with stiffness
at times.” Id. at 30.
Although Petitioner continued to mention her right shoulder pain during physicals
attended in June and December 2021 (Ex. 7 at 9, 20), the last medical record related to
treatment of her right shoulder pain is from an orthopedic visit on June 14, 2021. Ex. 6 at
28. Following examination that showed “full range of motion . . . [and] no pain over [the]
AC joint or bicipital groove” and a review of the February 2021 MRI (id. at 29), the
orthopedist opined that Petitioner “clearly has a component coming from her neck,”
adding that she “has had treatment with one of our neck specialist[s].” Id. at 30. Stating
also that he thought “she has just some residual adhesive capsulitis at this time,” he
administered an intra-articular steroid injection. Id.
12 For example, Petitioner reported difficulty lowering a crate holding an animal from a shelf to a table on
March 23, 2021. Ex. 2 at 14.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 9 of 10
In her declaration, signed on August 18, 2023, Petitioner insisted that her shoulder
pain began when she received the Td vaccine, which was more painful, and administered
higher, than other vaccines. Ex. 8 at ¶ 2. She acknowledged that she mentioned moving
plants when asked for possible causes of her right shoulder pain, but claimed that activity
occurred involved multiple plants, and occurred in October 2020, even earlier than her
vaccination. Id. at ¶ 5. Stating that she informed her PCP and orthopedist about her belief
that the Td vaccine caused shoulder pain in follow-up appointments, she averred “[b]oth
doctors agreed with me” (id. at ¶ 6), and the spinal specialist, PA Burke ruled out any
other cause for her pain (id. at ¶ 7).
IV. Analysis
All evidence from prior to the Petition’s filing supports a pain onset beginning more
than a week post-vaccination, and unrelated to the Td vaccine she received. Furthermore,
in the histories provided when first seeking treatment, Petitioner identified December 3,
2020, as the date for her pain onset. And she theorized that her pain was due to her
actions moving a potted plant, and thereafter exacerbated by tasks performed while
gardening and at work. Petitioner also reported pain not near her shoulder joint, but rather
over the shoulder blade and rhomboid muscle. Most importantly, she did not mention the
Td vaccine as a potential cause of her pain until two weeks after this case was initiated.
Moreover, in January 2021, Petitioner began to experience additional symptoms –
primarily pain radiating to her fingertips and in her neck - more likely related to her spine
and neck. Several treating physicians noted the cervical nature of these symptoms, and
referred Petitioner to an expert in this area for further assessment and treatment. And
Petitioner showed greater symptom improvement in response to PT exercises focusing
on her neck and spine.
Petitioner’s later assertions related to onset and the supportive stances of her
treating physicians run counter to the information contained in the contemporaneously-
created medical records. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-1585V, 2005 WL
6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005) (stating that medical records which
are clear, consistent, and complete should be afforded substantial weight). They are not
sufficient to counter the substantial evidence presented by the contemporaneously
created medical records which supports a later pain onset, more likely attributable to
muscle strain and cervical issues. Thus, Petitioner cannot prevail pursuant to either a
Table or non-Table claim.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00828-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/19/25 Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide
preponderant evidence to support her allegation of a right shoulder injury that meets the
definition for a Table SIRVA or was caused by the Td vaccine she received on November
22, 2020. Petitioner was informed that failure to provide preponderant evidence to support
her claim would be treated as either a failure to prosecute this claim or as an inability to
provide supporting documentation for the claim, and she did not act to bulwark the claim
despite due opportunity. Accordingly, entitlement cannot be preponderantly established,
and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
13 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.
10