VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00940
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00940
Petitioner: Jeannie Lowery
Filed: 2021-02-17
Decided: 2024-11-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-11
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 76365

AI-assisted case summary:
Jeannie Lowery filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she developed a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on September 11, 2020. She further alleged that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. The respondent initially contested entitlement but later filed an amended report stating that he did not contest that Ms. Lowery was entitled to compensation. The respondent accepted the finding that the flu vaccine was administered into her right shoulder and agreed that Ms. Lowery suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, meeting all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's position and the evidence, the Chief Special Master found Ms. Lowery entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, indicating that Ms. Lowery should be awarded a total of $76,365.11, consisting of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering and $1,365.11 in past unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Lowery agreed with this proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Ms. Lowery the lump sum payment of $76,365.11.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00940-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-24
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/23/2024) regarding 33 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 34 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0940V
UNPUBLISHED
JEANNIE LOWERY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: April 23, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 17, 2021, Jeannie Lowery 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) administered on September 11,
2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
After a review of the record and other filings, and for the reasons discussed below,
I find that Petitioner’s flu vaccine was more likely than not administered to her right arm.
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-00940-UNJ Document 34 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 5
I. Relevant Procedural History
Ms. Lowery filed her petition for compensation along with medical record exhibits
from February to May 2021. (ECF No. 1, 7-10). Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, filed on
January 26, 2023 (ECF No. 26), argued that Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim failed
because her vaccination record stated that she had received the flu vaccine in her left
shoulder, instead of her right shoulder as the Petition alleges. Id. at 5. And to the extent
that Petitioner may argue that her vaccination was administered on her right side, the
Vaccine Act expressly bars the Court from finding a Table injury – or a demonstration “by
a preponderance of the evidence the matters required in the petition by section 300aa-
11(c)(1)” – “based on the claims of the petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical
records or by medical opinion.”
The parties subsequently filed briefing requesting a ruling on situs. My ruling is set
forth below.
II. Issue
The following issue is contested: whether Petitioner received the vaccination
alleged as causal in her right shoulder.
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
§ 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.
§ 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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 34 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 5
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later 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 & Human 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). However, 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 credibility of the individual offering such testimony
must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human 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).
IV. Findings of Fact
Site of Vaccination
Based on a review of the entire record, including all medical records and affidavits,
the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, the arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for
Fact Ruling (“Motion”), and the arguments in the response thereto (“Response”), I find
that Petitioner’s September 11, 2020 flu vaccine was more likely than not administered in
her right arm, as she contends.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 34 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 5
Only the initial vaccination record indicates that Ms. Lowery received the flu
vaccine to her left shoulder. Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 2 at 2. All subsequent records document Ms.
Lowery’s allegation that she received the flu vaccine to her right shoulder. And not a single
record (other than the vaccination record) contradicts her assertion. See e.g., Ex. 2 at 2
(September 28, 2020, just 17 days post-vaccination, Petitioner messaged her primary
care provider stating “on Sep. 11, I got a flu shot at work in my right arm from CVS…”);
Ex. 9 at 7 (October 20, 2020, during a routine physical with Petitioner’s PCP, the chief
complaint is listed as “Arm Pain (& shoulder pain – right – from flu shot 9/11); Ex. 3 at 11
(November 6, 2020, “Patient is a 46 year old female that is here as a new patient with
complaints of right shoulder pain since 9/11/20. She states that she received a flu shot
and has had pain ever since.”); Ex. 3 at 8 (December 18, 2020, “[S]he received flu shot
on 9/11 on r[igh]t arm and has been painful since.”); Ex. 3 at 6 (January 29, 2021, results
of right shoulder MRI); Ex. 10 at 8-31 (Petitioner attended 10 physical therapy sessions
for treatment of right shoulder; “Range of Motion – Shoulder AROM Right: Flexion 75°,
Abduction 45°. Shoulder PROM Right: Flexion 90°, Abduction 90°. Strength: Gross
Muscle Tests – Shoulder Flexion Right: 2/5, Shoulder Abduction Right 2/5, Shoulder
External Rotation Right: 3/5, Shoulder IR @ 90° Abduction Right 2/5. Empty Can and
subscapularis Lift Off tests positive on the right.” Ex. 14 at 7-35 (Petitioner attended 11
more physical therapy sessions to treat her right shoulder and received a steroid injection
to her right shoulder).
Ms. Lowery also submitted three affidavits, one from herself and two from her co-
workers who were present with Petitioner when she received her flu vaccination on
September 11, 2020. All attested Petitioner received the flu vaccine on September 11,
2020, to her right shoulder. Exs. 6-8. While this kind of evidence alone might not resolve
the question, in this case it corroborates contemporaneous record proof – and thus should
not be rejected as Respondent contends.
Thus, the overall medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s and two additional
witness affidavits, establish that Petitioner consistently and repeatedly reported to treaters
right shoulder pain that was caused by a flu vaccine received in that shoulder. This is
sufficient proof to overcome the contrary administration record (which lacks corroboration
on its own). The subsequent treatment records gain strength as well given their temporal
proximity to the date of vaccination. Otherwise, there is no reason to give the single record
of vaccine administration more weight simply because it came first, in the absence of
other evidence that corroborates it.
Given my findings of fact, Respondent should evaluate and provide his current
position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 34 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 5
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
(1) By Tuesday, May 28, 2024, Petitioner shall file all updated medical
records.
(2) Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, June 10, 2024, an
amended Rule 4(c) Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the
above fact-finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00940-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/06/2024) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/09/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0940V
JEANNIE LOWERY,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: June 6, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 17, 2021, Jeannie Lowery 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 developed a right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
on September 11, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effect of her injuries for more than six months. Petition at 3. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 26, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contesting
entitlement. ECF No. 26. On April 23, 2024, I issued a Finding of Fact ruling that Petitioner
received the flu vaccine at issue in this case in her right shoulder. ECF No. 33.
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-00940-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/09/24 Page 2 of 2
On June 5, 2024, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he states
that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[w]hile
preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s April 23, 2024 finding that
petitioner received the flu vaccine in her right arm, respondent accepts this ruling as the
law of the case for purposes of further proceedings before the Chief Special Master.” Id.
at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine
Injury Table. Id.at 6. “Specifically, petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation,
or dysfunction of her right shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after
receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the
vaccine was administered;2 and, no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial
neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s right shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§
100.3(a), (c)(10). In addition, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for
more than six months.” Id. Thus, Respondent states that he 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

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00940-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/18/2024) regarding 45 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0940V
JEANNIE LOWERY,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: October 18, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 17, 2021, Jeannie Lowery 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”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration
of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on September 11, 2020. Petition at 1-3.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 6, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation. On October 18, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded a total of $76,365.11,
consisting of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering and $1,365.11 in past unreimbursable
expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that 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.
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-00940-UNJ Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $76,365.11 (consisting of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering and
$1,365.11 in 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-00940-UNJ Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
JEANNIE LOWERY, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 21-940V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 17, 2021, Jeannie Lowery (“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”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on September 11, 2020. Petition at 1-3. On June
5, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Rule 4(c)
Report advising that, in light of the Chief Special Master’s April 23, 2024 Findings of Fact ruling
that the subject flu vaccine was more likely than not administered into petitioner’s right shoulder,
and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 33 at 1; ECF
No. 36 at 2. On June 6, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding
petitioner entitled to vaccine compensation for her right SIRVA. 1 ECF No. 37 at 1-2.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent

Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $75,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents the expenditure of past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,365.11. 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
the Court’s judgment award the following: 2
A lump sum payment of $76,365.11, representing compensation for pain and suffering
and past unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Jeannie Lowery: $76,365.11
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s April 23, 2024 Findings of Fact and June 6, 2024, entitlement decision.
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, respondent reserves the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00940-UNJ Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 5
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
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Jamica M. Littles
JAMICA M. LITTLES
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) 305-4014
Email: jamica.m.littles@usdoj.gov
DATED: October 18, 2024
3