VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00910
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00910
Petitioner: Jennifer Hamilton
Filed: 2021-02-10
Decided: 2024-11-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Jennifer Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 10, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on November 11, 2019, and that her symptoms persisted for longer than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed an amended report on October 7, 2024, stating that he did not contest entitlement. The respondent agreed that Ms. Hamilton suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation, based on the court's findings of fact and the medical record evidence. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on October 10, 2024, finding that Ms. Hamilton is entitled to compensation. The case is proceeding to determine the award amount. Petitioner was represented by William E. Cochran, Jr., and respondent was represented by Mark Kim Hellie. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details, or expert testimony.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jennifer Hamilton alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on November 11, 2019, with symptoms persisting for longer than six months. The respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation, based on the court's findings of fact and the medical record evidence. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on October 10, 2024, granting entitlement. The specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, and award details are not described in the public text. Petitioner's counsel was William E. Cochran, Jr., and respondent's counsel was Mark Kim Hellie.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00910-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-11
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/08/2024) regarding 43 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0910V
JENNIFER HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 10, 2021, Jennifer Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination she received on November
11, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Fact 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
more likely than not occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Beginning in March 2023, the parties engaged in settlement discussions,
attempting to reach an agreement regarding Petitioner’s claim, but were unsuccessful.
See ECF Nos. 29, 37. Accordingly, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on September
19, 2023, arguing that Petitioner has not established entitlement to compensation
because “the evidence in this case does not support a finding that Petitioner’s shoulder
pain began within the requisite forty-eight hours after vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 5.
On September 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a status report setting forth her arguments
in response to Respondent’s arguments in his Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 40. Although I
gave both parties an opportunity to submit any further evidence or argument regarding
the issue of onset, neither filed any additional materials. Therefore, the issue of onset is
ripe for a fact ruling.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
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-
2

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 7
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).
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
3

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 7
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).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence and arguments
filed. I find the following points to be particularly relevant:
• Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on November 11, 2019,
at the office of her primary care provider (“PCP”) in Memphis, TN. Ex. 9 at
7.
• Petitioner recalled having “pain in [her] left arm and shoulder after
vaccination that increased throughout the day.” Ex. 1 at ¶4. “By that
afternoon/evening,” she had “a very sore left arm.” Ex. 14 at ¶1. On the
following day, Petitioner had “significant muscle soreness and warmth in
[her] left upper arm.” Id. at ¶3.
• On December 10, 2019 (nearly a month post-vaccination), Petitioner sent a
text to her mother forwarding an article about “post-flu shot shoulder pain.”
Ex. 11 at 4. She referenced “what’s wrong with [her] shoulder.” Id. She
stated that she may need to see a doctor because “one month later and it’s
not a bit better.” Id. She indicated that she planned to see her PCP, but that
she would have new insurance in January. Id.
• Petitioner has recalled that “at some point in January 2020,” she noticed
improvement in her symptoms, so that her pain was “manageable during
day hours.” Ex. 14 at ¶9. In March 2020, Petitioner began working from
home due to the covid-19 pandemic. Id. at ¶11.
• On March 26, 2020, Petitioner saw her PCP for a fever and sore throat. Ex.
2 at 11. She did not mention any shoulder pain. Petitioner recalled that, due
to the pandemic, her visit that day was very brief and focused only on her
acute symptoms. Ex. 14 at ¶12.
• Petitioner further maintains that in April 2020, she tried one night to fluff her
pillow, and then suffered an increase in symptoms that “made [her] really
concerned.” Ex. 14 at ¶15.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 5 of 7
• On April 21, 2020 (now over five months after her vaccination) Petitioner
requested an appointment with her PCP to address “shoulder pain on the
left side since November.” Ex. 3 at 1. She was seen three days later, on
April 24, 2020. Ex. 2 at 18. On exam, Petitioner had decreased range of
motion and tenderness of her left shoulder. Id. at 19. She was assessed
with chronic left shoulder pain, however, no treatment was recommended.
Id. at 20. Petitioner recalled that her doctor would refer her to an orthopedist.
Ex. 14 at ¶17.
• Although Petitioner did not initially receive a referral to an orthopedist, she
recalls that her symptoms were not “getting worse and possibly marginally
better” after her initial appointment. Ex. 14 at ¶18. In early August 2020, she
recalled exacerbating her symptoms reaching for something on the floor of
her car. Id. at ¶19. By the end of August, she placed a call to her PCP to
ask about the referral to an orthopedist. Id.
• On August 24, 2020 (over nine months after her vaccination), Petitioner
reported her left shoulder pain to an orthopedist. Ex. 4 at 3. She complained
of left shoulder symptoms that “started last November when she had a flu
shot.” Id. at 4. On exam, she lacked “full range of motion in all planes,” had
pain with motion, and displayed mild crepitus. Id. at 3. She was diagnosed
with adhesive capsulitis and received a steroid injection. Id. at 4. Petitioner
was referred to physical therapy.
• Petitioner began physical therapy the following day. Ex. 4 at 50. She
reported that she had a flu shot in her left shoulder, had pain for three
months, “then the whole covid thing happened and she is just now getting
around to it.” Id. On exam, she had reduced range of motion and positive
impingement testing. Id. at 51. Her plan of care included treatments three
times a week for six weeks. Id. at 52.
Respondent argues that Petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence of
onset within 48 hours “because Petitioner’s first report of left shoulder pain was five and
a half months after vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 5. Respondent also highlights an
intervening appointment that Petitioner had with her PCP for a sore throat, during which
she did not mention any shoulder pain, noting that Petitioner had “no persuasive reason”
for not doing so. Id.
While Respondent is correct that Petitioner did not seek medical treatment for her
shoulder pain for more than five months after her vaccination, his argument ignores
probative non-medical record evidence submitted by Petitioner that her pain occurred
5

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 6 of 7
within the required period. In two affidavits, Petitioner states that her shoulder pain began
the same day as her vaccination, which continued through the following days. See Ex. 1
at ¶4; Ex. 14 at ¶2-4. In addition, Petitioner has provided copies of text messages that
she sent to her mother on December 10, 2019, one month after her vaccination. Ex. 11
at 4. In those messages, Petitioner expressed that “one month later” her shoulder was
“not a bit better,” suggesting that her shoulder symptoms began very close in time to her
vaccination. Id. Finally, when Petitioner requested an appointment with her PCP for her
shoulder pain, she reported “shoulder pain on the left side since November.” Ex. 3 at 1.
Also compelling is the fact that when Petitioner sought treatment, she consistently
attributed her shoulder pain to her flu shot. See e.g., Ex. 4 at 4 (pain “started last
November when she had a flu shot.”). Although the records do not specifically place onset
within 48 hours, they are not contradicted by Petitioner’s affidavit testimony that she
experienced pain within hours of her vaccination. In fact, the affidavit testimony provides
consistent detail to the general notations in the medical records.
Petitioner did have an intervening appointment with her PCP (in March 2020)
during which she did not report shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 11. But she has persuasively noted
that the visit occurred during the early part of the Covid-19 Pandemic, and she was
experiencing a fever, cough, and sore throat at the time – which were symptoms of the
virus. Ex. 14 at ¶12. She also has recalled the visit being brief, and focused on testing for
Covid-19 and strep throat. Id. A careful reading of the record of that appointment
corroborates Petitioner’s recollection – as a nurse, a phlebotomist, and a doctor spent a
combined total of nine minutes with Petitioner. Ex. 2 at 12. Under such circumstances, it
is reasonable that Petitioner would not mention shoulder pain that she acknowledged
“was manageable during day hours” at that time, while she was acutely ill with a potentially
new virus. Ex. 14 at ¶9.
Clearly Petitioner delayed seeking care for her alleged injury. But although it is
reasonable to expect that an average claimant “might seek medical treatment sooner if in
fact the person was experiencing sudden post-vaccination pain,” Petitioner has provided
a reasonable and consistent explanation for her decision to delay formal medical
treatment. When symptoms she initially believed would resolve did not, Petitioner planned
to seek care once she had new health insurance. Ex. 11 at 4. Then, in early 2020, she
experienced an improvement in her symptoms that rendered them manageable, which,
when combined with a busy work schedule, further delayed her decision to seek care. Ex.
14 at ¶9. An aggravation in April 2020, five months after her vaccination, finally pushed
her to make an appointment with her PCP. Id. at ¶14-15. Petitioner’s delay does not
preclude a finding of Table onset (although it definitely informs damages, since it suggests
the injury was not severe).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/11/24 Page 7 of 7
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
The following is ORDERED: Respondent shall file, by no later than
Wednesday, September 18, 2024, a status report indicating how he intends to
proceed in this case in light of the record and this fact ruling. The status report shall
indicate whether he is willing to engage in discussions regarding settlement or damages
or remains opposed to negotiating at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00910-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/10/2024 ) regarding 47 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0910V
JENNIFER HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 10, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 10, 2021, Jennifer Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination she received on November
11, 2019. Petition at ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that her SIRVA symptoms have
persisted for longer than six months. Petition at ¶ 13. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 7, 2024, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00910-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/14/24 Page 2 of 2
Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that “in light of the
Court’s Findings of Fact and the medical record evidence submitted in this case,”
“Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table”. Id. at 4. Respondent
further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal
the Findings of Fact, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and 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
2