VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00842
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00842
Petitioner: Hema Mullur
Filed: 2021-02-02
Decided: 2024-10-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 38037

AI-assisted case summary:
Hema Mullur filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on September 26, 2020. She reported right shoulder pain shortly after the vaccination, which worsened over time. Medical records indicated tenosynovitis and nerve inflammation, and an MRI showed signs consistent with SIRVA. Despite a dispute regarding which shoulder received the vaccine, the Chief Special Master found that the evidence preponderantly supported a right-side vaccine administration and a Table SIRVA injury. The court found that Mullur met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including no prior shoulder issues, onset within 48 hours of vaccination, and pain limited to the right shoulder. She also met the general requirements for entitlement, such as receiving the vaccine in the United States and having no prior civil award. Consequently, Mullur was found entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision awarded her $38,037.99, comprising $37,500.00 for pain and suffering and $537.99 for past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00842-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-27
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/27/2024) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-842V
UNPUBLISHED
HEMA MULLUR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 27, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling
HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Influenza Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 2, 2021, Hema Mullur 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 26, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
1 Because this unpublished fact ruling 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 the fact ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 9
Petitioner filed this claim on February 2, 2021. ECF No. 1. On January 24, 2023,
Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record. Motion for a Ruling on the Record
(“Mot.”), ECF No. 29. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and response to Petitioner’s
motion on March 21, 2023. Respondent’s Combined Rule 4(c) Report and Response to
Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed a
reply on March 28, 2023. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s
Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 32.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
On September 26, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine. Ex. 7 at 5. The record
states the vaccination was administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder – although Petitioner
alleges a right SIRVA.
Petitioner thereafter communicated with her primary care provider on October 23,
2020, via text message. Ex. 10 at 1-4. The message states “I got a flu shot Sept 26 and
had pain and soreness worse than usual right after, but assumed it would go away. Since
then, pain and mobility in my shoulder has continued to get worse.” She was prescribed
800 mg of Ibuprofen at that time. Ex. 10 at 2.
On November 6, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Adriana Guerra. Ex. 3 at 10. Petitioner
complained of right shoulder pain “since flu shot” on September 26th. Id. Further, she
reported slight pain with minor movement, “lots of pain with larger movement….” Id. She
was diagnosed with tenosynovitis and nerve inflammation. Id. at 12. A Medrol Dosepak
was prescribed, which helped relieve her pain. Ex. 10 at 3. On November 19, 2020,
Petitioner again complained of right shoulder pain in a text message. Id. Petitioner wrote
“as expected, felt great while taking the steroids…. My last day taking them was Monday,
and now the pain is back….” Id.
An MRI was performed on December 3, 2020. Ex. 3 at 14. The history states “[r]ight
shoulder and deltoid pain after flu injection, even after nsaids and steroid, decrease in
range of motion.” Id. The impression included a “SIRVA” and showed signs consistent
with bone marrow edema, and mild bursitis. Id.
Six months later, Petitioner was seen at Texas Orthopedics on June 8, 2021. Ex.
8 at 8. She complained of “right shoulder pain since September 2020, when she had a flu
shot.” Ex. Id. An examination showed full range of motion with “slight positive
apprehension, localized to the anterior aspect of the shoulder, with abduction and
2

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 9
rotation.” Petitioner was assessed with right shoulder pain, bursitis, tendinitis, and pain
after vaccination.
III. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner submitted two affidavits in support of her claim. Ex. 1, 11. She stated
that she is a news anchor and was asked to participate in a vaccination clinic “to
encourage people in the city to get flu shot.” Ex. 11 at 1. Additionally, there is a photograph
of her at the clinic receiving the vaccine in her right arm, citing Ex. 9, Ex. 11 at 1. Further,
Petitioner stated that she learned on July 17, 2021, that she was pregnant, and “knew
that any further imaging or medication would likely not be possible so [she] chose to not
proceed with trying to get additional treatment.” Id. at 2.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner asserts that she suffered a right SIRVA Table as defined by the Vaccine
Injury Table, and that the vaccination was administered in her right shoulder. Mot. at 7-9.
Respondent contends that Petitioner has failed to show she is entitled to compensation.
Specifically, Respondent argues that the records indicate her vaccination was
administered in her left arm – meaning she cannot sustain a claim based on a right-side
shoulder injury. Opp. at 5-6. Respondent also argues that Petitioner cannot meet the
definition of a SIRVA because there is no record of onset within 48-hours of vaccination,
or decreased range of motion, and that she failed to establish her symptoms lasted for
more than six months. Id. at 6-7.
V. 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).
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 his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for his injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 4 of 9
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
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
4

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 5 of 9
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 &
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).
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
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 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).
A. Severity Requirement
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she
suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months
after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine
Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on September 26, 2020,
and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual
symptoms continued at least through March 26, 2021 (assuming onset of pain the day of
vaccination). See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014
WL 3889070, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's injury
resolved less than two months after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred between October
and December of 2020. Ex. 10 at 1-4; Ex. 3 at 14. There is a subsequent gap in treatment
of approximately six months, with Petitioner not again seeking medical attention for her
5

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 6 of 9
shoulder until June 2021 – although at that time she reported “right shoulder pain since
September 2020, when she had a flu shot.” Ex. 8 at 9 (emphasis added).
Respondent argues that the treatment gap defeats a finding of severity. Opp. at 7.
However, there is no requirement that any Program petitioner consistently and frequently
seek treatment for her injury. And treatment gaps that are not inordinately long can
overlap the six-month deadline. It is enough that the evidence establishes a petitioner
continued to suffer from shoulder pain beyond the six-month period – and that the first
post-gap treatment event persuasively relate back to the claim that the pain is
vaccination-associated. Here, the record suggests such a relation, and the gap itself was
not so long as to suggest injury resolution (or exacerbation by intervening events) was
likely.
I thus find severity is satisfied. However, the consistently light history of treatment
suggests a mild injury - which will impact what amount of damages are proper.
B. 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 Likely Received the Flu Vaccine in her Right Shoulder
Respondent contends that, although Petitioner alleges a right SIRVA, the vaccine
records indicate that the vaccine was received in her left arm. Opp. at 5-6. Respondent’s
reading of the administration record is literally correct (Ex. 7 at 5 (stating the vaccine was
administered in Petitioner’s left arm)), but his argument does not take into account the
totality of the evidence, which soundly supports a right-side vaccine administration
finding.
The overall medical records establish that Petitioner consistently and repeatedly
reported to treaters right shoulder pain following a flu vaccine received in that shoulder.
See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 10 (record stating that Petitioner reported right shoulder pain “since flu
shot”); id. at 14 (MRI noting right shoulder and deltoid pain “after flu injection”); Ex. 8 at 8
(noting “right shoulder pain since … she had a flu shot.”). Additionally, Petitioner’s
declarations provide corroborating evidence. For example, she stated that the vaccine
was given in her right shoulder, and provided photographic evidence to that effect. Ex. 11
at 1, Ex. 9.
The only contrary record comes from the administration record itself. While that
document is both the first contemporaneous item of evidence relevant to this fact dispute,
6

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 7 of 9
it finds no other corroboration in the overall record – and I do not give it great weight,
since it is consistently observed in SIRVA cases in the Program that computer-generated
administration records are frequently incorrect, or are completed based on assumptions
about what arm will receive the vaccine in most cases – but without taking into account
the relevant petitioner’s circumstances. See, e.g., Schoenborn v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 21-0227V, 2024 WL 1342999, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28, 2024) (noting that it is
repeatedly observed in Program cases that “it is not unusual for the information regarding
site of vaccination in computerized systems to be incorrect”) (internal citations omitted);
Cook v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1029V, 2022 WL 3012304, at *4 (Fed. Cl.
June 29, 2022) (noting that information regarding site of vaccination in computerized
systems is not always correct and often uses a ‘dropdown’ menu which may not be
updated each time a separate vaccine is administered to a different individual).
2. No Prior Right Shoulder Condition or Injury Would Explain
Petitioner’s Symptoms
Another 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). Petitioner’s records do not contain evidence of a
prior condition or injury that would explain her current symptoms. Therefore, Petitioner
meets this requirement.
3. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on October 23, 2020, less than one
month after her vaccination. Ex. 10 at 2. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to link her
shoulder pain temporally to the flu vaccine. See Ex. 3 at 10 (record from November 6,
2020 wherein Petitioner complained of right shoulder pain “since flu shot”); Ex. 8 at 8
(record from June 8, 2021, stating her pain started after a flu shot).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s descriptions of the temporal start of her
shoulder pain are vague, given the use of the word “since.” Opp. at 6. Even so, a finding
of proper onset can be made based on such a record. Program petitioners are not
required to seek medical care within 48 hours of vaccination, or provide detailed
chronological histories of the exact onset and course of treatment. Further, as noted
above, Petitioner consistently linked her shoulder pain to the September flu vaccine.
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.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 8 of 9
4. Petitioner’s Pain and Reduced Range of Motion was Limited to her
Right Shoulder
The evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s pain and reduced range of
motion was limited to her right shoulder. Respondent argues that there is no
documentation of decreased range of motion in the overall record. Opp. at 6. But this is
inaccurate. On December 3, 2020, Petitioner’s history included right shoulder and deltoid
pain and “decrease in range of motion.” Ex. 3 at 14. And there is no other record evidence,
such as an exam finding, suggesting that her range of motion was normal. Accordingly,
preponderant evidence establishes that Petitioner’s pain was limited to her right shoulder,
and there is at least some evidence that she experienced reduced range of motion.
5. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality that
would Explain Petitioner’s Current Symptoms
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 the
records do not contain any evidence that another condition or abnormality that would
explain Petitioner’s symptoms.
C. 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 on September 26, 2020, in
the United States. Ex. 7 at 5; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered
vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United States or its
territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award for her injury.
Ex. 11 at 2; 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
occurred within 48 hours of her vaccination, and that the vaccination was administered in
her right shoulder. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this requirement). I have
also found that there is no other condition which would explain Petitioner’s current
symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48 hours for a Table
8

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 40 Filed 09/27/24 Page 9 of 9
SIRVA following receipt of the influenza vaccine). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all
requirements for a Table SIRVA.
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
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00842-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-22
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/20/2024) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-842V
HEMA MULLUR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 20, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 2, 2021, Hema Mullur 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine she
received on September 26, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 27, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for a Table SIRVA injury. On September 16, 2024, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$38,037.99 (comprised of $37,500.00 for pain and suffering and $537.99 for past
unreimbursable expenses). Proffer at 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-00842-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/22/24 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 $38,037.99 (comprised of $37,500.00 for pain and suffering and
$537.99 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/22/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
HEMA MULLUR,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-842V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER
On February 2, 2021, Hema Mullur (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (“Vaccine
Act” or “Act”), as amended. On December 29, 2021, petitioner filed an amended petition for
compensation (“Petition”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) in her right shoulder, as a result of a flu vaccine
intramuscularly administered on September 26, 2020. Petition at 1. On January 24, 2023,
petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record. ECF No. 29. On March 21, 2023, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Combined Rule 4(c) Report and
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record, recommending against
compensation because petitioner had not established a Table1 SIRVA claim. ECF No. 31. On
August 27, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
1 The Vaccine Injury Table is located at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3.
1

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 5
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 33. Respondent now files this proffer regarding the amount
of damages to be awarded.2
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $37,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
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 $537.99. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
2 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the 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 Special Master’s
August 27, 2024, entitlement decision.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00842-UNJ Document 43 Filed 10/22/24 Page 5 of 5
the Court’s judgment award the following3: a lump sum payment of $38,037.99, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Hema Mullur: $38,037.99
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ PARISA TABASSIAN
PARISA TABASSIAN
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) 305-4035
Parisa.Tabassian@usdoj.gov
Dated: September 16, 2024
3 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.
3