VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00876
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00876
Petitioner: Mike Rodriguez
Filed: 2021-02-05
Decided: 2024-10-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-28
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45160

AI-assisted case summary:
Mike Rodriguez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine he received on October 28, 2020, caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The injury is defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. The primary dispute in the case was whether Mr. Rodriguez experienced shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination, as required by the Table. While his first medical record documenting shoulder pain was from 21 days post-vaccination, the court found that his consistent reporting of pain beginning after the vaccination, coupled with his affidavit stating onset on the same date, satisfied the Table requirement. The court noted that delays in treatment are not uncommon for SIRVA claims and that the timing of his first medical encounter was not long enough to negate his claim. Respondent did not raise other objections to entitlement. Consequently, the court ruled that Mr. Rodriguez was entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. The case then proceeded to the damages phase, where the parties reached a stipulation. On October 30, 2024, the court awarded Mr. Rodriguez a total of $45,160.00, comprising $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $160.00 for past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00876-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-16
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/10/2024 ) regarding 40 Ruling on Entitlement,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0876V
MIKE RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 10, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 5, 2021, Mike Rodriguez 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 received
on October 28, 2020, he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition (ECF No. 1); see
also Amended Petition filed Aug. 23, 2021 (ECF No. 10) (elaborating on the factual
allegations and providing citations to the medical records).
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 8
As set forth in more detail below, I find that Petitioner more likely than not began
to experience shoulder pain less than forty-eight (48) hours after vaccination. And based
on the lack of any other objections from Respondent along with an independent review of
the record, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly established all other requirements for
a Table SIRVA claim – making him entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
After Petitioner completed the statutorily required filings, the case was activated
and assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” – OSM’s forum for cases which are deemed
likely to resolve without extensive resources. Activation Order (ECF No. 17). The parties
explored the prospect of settlement from July 2023 until they reached an impasse in
January 2024. See generally ECF Nos. 28 – 38. On March 22, 2024, Respondent filed a
Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation, on the grounds that there is not preponderant
evidence of onset within 48 hours, as required by the Table. Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No.
39). Upon reviewing the case file, I have determined that the parties’ respective positions
regarding onset – and entitlement for the Table SIRVA more generally – were sufficiently
developed and therefore ripe for adjudication.
II. Authority
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 8
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI 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
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;
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he 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 her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 8
(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) (2017).
III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Onset
I have reviewed all of the filings submitted by both parties to date, but focus on the
sole disputed issue: onset.
• In October 2019 (a year prior to the relevant vaccination), Petitioner suffered an
injury to his opposite right shoulder while practicing defensive tactics, as part of his
employment as a public safety officer. He attended orthopedics evaluations and
physical therapy (“PT”) sessions, underwent an MRI arthrogram, and was
diagnosed with a right shoulder SLAP tear. In March 2020, Petitioner’s right
shoulder injury was assessed to be maximally medically improved, and he was
released back to full work duty. See generally Ex. 5 at 3 – 21 (orthopedics records);
see also Ex. 8 at 55 – 83 (PT records, reflecting workers’ compensation coverage
for the left shoulder injury). These records do not reflect any complaints or
abnormal findings in the left shoulder, however.
• Additionally, a November 2019 internal medicine record provides that Petitioner’s
complaints included pain in his neck and both arms, left more than right, with
associated tingling. This complaint was assessed as an unspecified
polyneuropathy, and it was not documented at a subsequent internal medicine
encounter in January 2020, compare Ex. 4 at 5 – 7, 8 – 9, and there are no other
pre-vaccination medical records.
• On October 28, 2020, Petitioner received the subject vaccine in his left deltoid at
a Walgreens pharmacy in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ex. 1 at 4 – 6.
• Twenty-one (21) days post-vaccination, on November 18, 2020, at a visit to a new
primary care provider (“PCP”), Petitioner wrote on the new patient questionnaire
that his chief concern was “flu shot caused injury to shoulder.” Ex. 6 at 13. The
form did not request the injury’s date, however. Id. During the appointment, a
physician recorded that Petitioner “had a flu shot in his left shoulder couple weeks
4

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 5 of 8
ago and subsequently has had pain located in that area. No other trauma no
previous injury.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). An exam found that the left shoulder
had full range of motion (“ROM”) and no impingement signs, but there was area of
“fullness” at the injection site, assessed to be consistent with subcutaneous fluid.
Id. at 22. An ultrasound of the area was unremarkable. Id. at 22, 26.
• On December 2, 2020, the same PCP followed up, via telemedicine, on Petitioner’s
persistent “left shoulder pain which started after flu shot.” Ex. 6 at 36 (emphasis
added). The PCP told Petitioner to return in-person for further evaluation. Id. at 37.
• On December 17, 2020, the PCP again recorded that Petitioner was suffering from
left shoulder pain “secondary to vaccination he received at Walgreens.” Ex. 6 at
54 (emphasis added).4 The PCP ordered an MRI, PT, and an orthopedics referral.
Id.
• The December 29, 2020, MRI report lists a clinical history of “left shoulder pain
after receiving a flu shot,” and an impression of minimal tendinopathy of the
insertion of the infraspinatus tendon. Ex. 8 at 49 (emphasis added).
• On March 27, 2021, Petitioner began PT for his left shoulder. His new patient form
lists an onset date of “Oct. 2020.” Ex. 8 at 39. The therapist recorded the nature of
injury was: “Oct. 2020 began after injection for flu shot injured the tendon.” Id.
at 29 (emphasis added). The therapist assessed left shoulder pain, decreased
ROM, and weakness. Id. Petitioner was offered formal PT twice a week for six
weeks, to include instruction on a home exercise program (“HEP”). Id. But he
attended just eight sessions concluding on May 15, 2021. Ex. 8 at 7 – 20; see also
id. at 3 – 5 (billing records); id. at 51 – 53 (communications log, reflecting
appointment cancellations at times due to work and illness). The final PT record,
from May 15, 2021, provides that Petitioner had “nearly full ROM throughout the
shoulder complex” and pa0in rated 1/10. Ex. 8 at 11 – 12.5
• In his September 8, 2021, affidavit, Petitioner recalled: “I received the influenza
vaccination in my left shoulder on October 28, 2020… That same date, I began to
4 The PCP records also provide that Petitioner filed a complaint against Walgreens. Ex. 6 at 36, 54.
Petitioner subsequently advised that he did not file a “formal” complaint with Walgreens, rather, he placed
a phone call to Walgreens to report his injury, but he did not receive any follow-up correspondence. Pet.
Status Report filed Aug. 31, 2022 (ECF No. 23).
5 Petitioner later confirmed that he did not seek any further treatment beyond this PT session on May 15,
2021, and thus, there are no updated medical records to file. Pet. Status Report filed Aug. 31, 2022 (ECF
No. 23).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 6 of 8
experience sharp pain my left shoulder…My symptoms began within forty-eight
(48) hours of vaccination[.]” Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 4 – 5, 7.
The only issue requiring adjudication is the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain.
42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10)(ii). Respondent avers: “Petitioner did not complain
of left shoulder pain or seek care for his alleged left shoulder injury for twenty-one [21]
days after vaccination. When he did present, Petitioner [reported] that he received a flu
shot and ‘subsequently’ had pain. Based on the record as it stands, the contemporaneous
medical records do not demonstrate that there is preponderant evidence of onset of pain
within 48 hours of vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 4 (internal citations omitted).
Such onset objections are not novel in the SIRVA context – and unpersuasive as
well given the evidence. Importantly, “the Vaccine Act does not require that symptoms be
recorded within a specific time frame or manner… Indeed, a special master may find that
the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an injury occurred ‘within the time frame
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.’” Accetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1731V, 2020 WL
3970180, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 11, 2020) (citing Section 13(b)(2)); see also,
e.g., Werning v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0267V, 2020 WL 5051154, at *10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2020) (noting the absence of any affirmative evidence of a
different onset).
Within the context of SIRVA claims, it is not uncommon for a patient and/or the
medical provider to utilize non-specific terminology while recording onset. But when onset
statements in a record are temporally non-specific but otherwise attributed to a
vaccination, it is reasonable to conclude the onset was likely close enough in time to
vaccination to meet this Table requirement of within 48 hours. See, e.g., Werning, 2020
WL 5051154, at *10 (accepting histories of “since” and “after”); Smallwood v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0291V, 2020 WL 2954958, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 29, 2020) (reasoning: “The simple fact that Petitioner did not use the phrase ‘within
48 hours’ does not diminish the impact of these statements”). Here, the medical records
reflect Mr. Rodriguez’s consistent reporting that his pain began “after” his vaccination,
and not after any other inciting event. Moreover, when he was directed to provide a more
specific timeframe, he answered “October 2020.” His affidavit specifies that his pain
began “the same date” as the vaccination. This evidence, considered in its entirety,
supports an onset finding in his favor.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 7 of 8
It has also been repeatedly observed that SIRVA petitioners often delay treatment,
thinking that an injury will resolve on its own. See, e.g., Smallwood, 2020 WL 2954958,
at *10 (accepting a 54-day initial treatment delay); Lesher v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 17-1076V, 2020 WL 4522381, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 2, 2020) (40-
day delay). And a twenty-one (21) day timeframe between Mr. Rodriguez’s vaccination
and his first medical treatment for a shoulder injury is not particularly long. Such a “delay”
is not long enough to suggest later generalized reports of pain after vaccination cannot
be interpreted as fitting the 48-hour Table requirement.6 Overall, there is preponderant
evidence that the onset of Mr. Rodriguez’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement (see generally Rule
4(c) Report), and based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has
preponderantly established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. §§
100.3(c)(10)(i, iii, iv). Accordingly, he need not prove causation-in-fact. Section
11(c)(1)(C). I also find that Petitioner has satisfied all other requirements of Section 11(c)
including a sufficiently severe injury, and the lack of other award or settlement. Section
11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA following the October 28,
2020, flu vaccine.
Therefore, the case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are
instructed to adjust their assessments of the claim (given that it is no longer in a settlement
posture) and promptly determine whether an informal resolution can be reached.7
By no later than Friday, July 26, 2024, Petitioner shall file a Joint Status
Report updating on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages. If
the parties have reached an impasse, the status report shall propose a schedule
for either sequential or simultaneous briefing of their respective positions on
damages.
6 At most, the timing of Petitioner’s first medical encounter for his shoulder injury is relevant to assessing
the initial injury’s severity, which would be one factor in assessing an appropriate pain and suffering award.
7 It is noted that the medical records reference Petitioner’s insurance coverage changing, and specific
references to Medicaid. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 62, 66 – 74; Ex. 8 at 4 – 6. But Petitioner has reported that no
Medicaid lien is associated with his claim. Pet. Status Report filed Aug. 31, 2023 (ECF No. 30).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 41 Filed 07/16/24 Page 8 of 8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00876-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-30
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/23/2024) regarding 45 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0876V
MIKE RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 23, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On February 5, 2021, Mike Rodriguez 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 received
on October 28, 2020, he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition (ECF No. 1); see
also Amended Petition filed Aug. 23, 2021 (ECF No. 10) (elaborating on the factual
allegations and providing citations to the medical records).
On June 10, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for a SIRVA. On September 23, 2024, Respondent filed a Proffer on
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 5
award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with
the proffered award. Id. at 1 – 2. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award the following compensation:
A lump sum of $45,160.00 (representing $45,000.00 for pain and suffering,
and $160.00 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. Proffer at 2. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would
be available under Section 15(a). Id.
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-00876-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
MIKE RODRIGUEZ, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-876V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 5, 2021, Mike Rodriguez (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. The petition alleges that as a result of receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 28, 2020, petitioner suffered from a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). See Petition at Preamble, 1; see Amended Petition,
ECF No. 10, at 1. On March 22, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case was not appropriate for
compensation under the terms of the Act. ECF No. 39. However, on June 10, 2024, Chief
Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to
compensation. ECF No. 40.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:21-vv-00876-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $160.00. 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 $45,160.00, in
the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Mike Rodriguez: $45,160.00
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
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-00876-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/30/24 Page 5 of 5
TRACI R. PATTON
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: September 23, 2024
3