VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01029
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01029
Petitioner: Aaron Cook
Filed: 2021-03-05
Decided: 2023-04-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-21
Condition: right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 75822

AI-assisted case summary:
Aaron Cook filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 5, 2021, alleging that he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on October 21, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On June 29, 2022, the Chief Special Master issued Findings of Fact, determining that the vaccine was most likely administered in Mr. Cook's right arm. On February 1, 2023, the Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, conceding that Mr. Cook had otherwise satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, while preserving the right to appeal the prior findings of fact. Based on this concession and the evidence, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on February 13, 2023, finding Mr. Cook entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 17, 2023, Respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, indicating that Mr. Cook should be awarded $75,822.85, comprised of $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $822.85 for past unreimbursable expenses. Mr. Cook agreed with this proffered award. On April 24, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision awarding Mr. Cook a total of $75,822.85, payable as a lump sum check to Petitioner. The decision noted that the award represented compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Petitioner was represented by Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr. of Rawls Law Group, and Respondent was represented by Madelyn Weeks of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Aaron Cook alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on October 21, 2020. The Respondent conceded that Petitioner satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following a prior ruling that the vaccine was administered in the right arm. The case proceeded to a damages decision based on a stipulation. The award was $75,822.85, consisting of $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $822.85 for past unreimbursable expenses. The theory of causation was based on the Vaccine Injury Table. No specific medical experts or detailed mechanism of injury were described in the provided public text. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 24, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., and Respondent's counsel was Madelyn Weeks.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01029-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-29
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/29/2022) regarding 28 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1029V
UNPUBLISHED
AARON COOK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 29, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Findings of
Fact; Site of Vaccination; Influenza
Respondent. (Flu); Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Michael Johnson Dunn Brown, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On March 5, 2021, Aaron Cook 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 receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
October 21, 2020, he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition
(ECF No. 1) at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the flu
vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s right deltoid as alleged.
1 Because this unpublished 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 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-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, Mr. Cook filed required medical records required under the
Vaccine Act, as well as his own and his wife’s unsworn declarations.3 Exs. 1-8. On
October 27, 2021, I deemed the record substantially complete pursuant to Section 11(c)
of the Vaccine Act. However, I noted a discrepancy between contemporaneous record
evidence indicating that Petitioner received the subject vaccine in his left shoulder, and
his allegation of receiving the vaccine in his subsequently injured right shoulder. PAR
Activation Order (ECF No. 11) (citing Ex. 3 at 4). On February 3, 2022, Respondent
reiterated the same issue, and reported that he would not complete a medical evaluation
of the claim for at least ten months. Status Report (ECF No. 23) at 2.
On February 22, 2022, I ordered Petitioner to file any additional evidence on the
situs issue. Scheduling Order (Non-PDF). He filed his own supplemental declaration, Ex.
12, followed by a supplemental Statement of Completion. Petitioner did not avail himself
of the opportunity to file briefing, and so Respondent has not filed a response. I have
determined that a factual finding regarding the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA is required in
this case, and will assist in its ultimate disposition.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the subject flu vaccine in his right arm as
alleged, rather than in his left arm as documented on the contemporaneous pharmacy
record. Ex. 3 at 4.
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
3 Although not notarized, the declarations are signed under penalty of perjury. Exs. 1-2, 12; accord 28
U.S.C. § 1746 (regarding the weight of unsworn declarations if signed under penalty of perjury).
2

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 7
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, 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).
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
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).
3

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 7
IV. Finding of Fact
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. This ruling, however, is limited to
determining facts pertaining to the site of the subject vaccination. Accordingly, I will only
summarize or discuss evidence that directly pertains to this issue. Specifically:
• Petitioner requested certified records for the subject October 21, 2020, vaccine. In
response, CVS Pharmacy provided Petitioner’s completed consent form – which
includes his handwritten answers to screening questions, his signature, and the
date. Ex. 3 at 1-2. This form does not address situs. Id. CVS also provided a
computerized record which provides that the vaccine was administered in his left
deltoid. Id. at 4.
• Five days after vaccination, on October 26, 2020, Petitioner presented to his
established primary care practice with a chief complaint of right shoulder pain. Ex.
4 at 2. He recounted being “given a flu vaccine last week 10/21/20 and has had
pain and decreased ROM since. He denies any injury or trauma.” Id. A physician-
assistant (“PA”) documented that the right shoulder displayed “nearly FROM [full
range of motion] with pain above 90 degrees on abduction and extension, +mild
tenderness over deltoid, no laxity.” Id. The PA did not offer a specific assessment,
but recommended ice, muscle relaxants, consulting orthopedics, and radiology of
the right shoulder. Id. at 2-3.
• On November 24, 2020, Petitioner attended an initial consult for his right shoulder
at an orthopedics practice. Ex. 5 at 6.4 The record provides that Petitioner is right-
hand dominant. Id. He reported right shoulder and deltoid pain, which “certainly
started right after his flu shot.” Id. On exam, the orthopedics PA observed right
deltoid tenderness, as well as induration on the lateral side about two and one-half
to three inches below the lateral chromium. Id. at 6-7. The exam findings did not
resemble an infectious process or an abscess. Id. at 7. The orthopedics PA’s
assessment was right shoulder tendinitis, for which he recommended steroids and
physical therapy (“PT”). Id.; see also Ex. 6 at 68 (PT referral); Ex. 5 at 2-5, Exs. 8-
9 (follow-up orthopedics appointments).
• On December 1, 2020, at the initial PT evaluation, Petitioner reported “R shoulder
pain after getting a flu shot on 10-21-20. [He] report[ed] being sore in his R
shoulder immediately and worse the next day.” Ex. 6 at 64-65. After completing six
4 Petitioner had previously seen a different provider at the orthopedics practice for an unrelated knee
injury. Ex. 5 at 9-10.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 7
sessions, he was discharged with a home exercise program on January 12, 2021.
Id. at 54-63; see also Ex. 10 (second PT course for right shoulder).
• A January 2021 MRI of the left shoulder visualized inflammation in the right
subacromial bursa extending into the subdeltoid area. See Ex. 5 at 5 (orthopedist’s
order of MRI); id. at 2 (discussing results).5
• Petitioner has averred that on October 21, 2020, he walked into the pharmacy
without an appointment to receive the subject vaccination. After an employee
provided him with paperwork to complete, he waited at least 10 to 15 minutes with
a few other customers before being called by the pharmacist to the vaccination
area. Petitioner recalls that the pharmacist seemed to be very busy, did not review
his completed paperwork, pulled up his right shirt sleeve, and administered the
vaccine in his right shoulder. Petitioner assumes that the first employee entered
that the vaccine was to be administered in his left deltoid, and the pharmacist
independently gave the vaccine in his right deltoid. Ex. 12; see also Ex. 1 (original
declaration).
• Petitioner recalls that he developed pain upon vaccination, which he believed to
be a normal side effect until it worsened rather than resolved. Exs. 1, 12.
• Petitioner’s wife did not witness the vaccination, but she recalls that he began
complaining one day later that his shoulder hurt a lot more than after typical
vaccinations. Ex. 2 at 1.
The above medical records reflect that Petitioner consistently attributed his right
shoulder pain to the flu vaccine, which he recalled receiving in that same upper extremity.
While Petitioner himself was responsible for so indicating, rather than the immediate
vaccination record, he consistently reported a right shoulder situs starting just five days
after vaccination, and in the context of seeking accurate medical treatment. Petitioner’s
witness statements are entitled to some weight, and they have not otherwise been
rebutted by Respondent. The statements he made to treaters that were subsequently set
down in medical records also should be taken into account. Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528
(“[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration of trustworthy evidence… [as they]
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions”) (emphasis added).
5 Petitioner may not have filed the original report of the MRI. He is ordered to file either the report or a
status report identifying where it appears in the existing record.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 6 of 7
This case contains additional circumstantial evidence – specifically, the objective
medical documentation of right deltoid tenderness, induration, and inflammation – that
establishes a right shoulder injury. And the record does not suggest any other injury or
trauma which would explain these findings. Rather, the orthopedics PA who first saw
Petitioner just one month into the injury’s course believed that these findings were
attributable to a vaccination.
The sole piece of evidence supporting that the vaccine was actually administered
in Petitioner’s left (opposite) arm is the CVS pharmacy’s computerized vaccine
administration record. Ex. 3 at 4. However, as I have noted in other cases: “[It is] not
unusual for the information regarding site of vaccination in computerized systems to be
incorrect. Many of these systems use a ‘dropdown’ menu which may not be updated each
time a separate vaccine is administered to a different individual.” Arnold v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-1038V, 2021 WL 2908519, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2021)
(citing Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 190435, at
*6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-
0811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL
6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018)).6 Thus, as reasoned in Arnold,
“although such records are unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing on
issues pertaining to situs, they are not per se reliable simply because they come first –
and in fact, the nature of the creation provides some basis for not accepting them at face
value.” Arnold, 2021 WL 2908519, at *4.
I therefore find, upon considering all evidence submitted, that the October 21,
2020, flu vaccine was most likely administered in Mr. Cook’s right arm.
V. Scheduling Order
Based on recent data about the general processing times for SIRVA claims in
general, I expect that Respondent will complete his medical review and form his tentative
6 Of note in Stoliker, then-Chief Special Master Dorsey permitted depositions from a CVS branch manager
and a pharmacist. The testimony reflected that documentation of vaccinations, including the site of
administration (left versus right deltoid) are commonly generated at the beginning of the encounter with the
patient. Once collected, the electronic information cannot be changed or deleted at the pharmacy level –
although it is sometimes annotated by hand. Stoliker, 2018 WL 6718629, at *3. Special Master Dorsey
deemed this testimony to be credible and accepted the handwritten notation correcting site on that
petitioner’s electronic record. Id. at *5. Here, of course, the CVS-produced record does not reflect any
similar notations – which is not inconsistent with Mr. Cook’s recollection that the pharmacist did not take
particular care in administering his vaccine.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/29/22 Page 7 of 7
position in this case in approximately November 2022. I have not received both parties’
positions and formally considered whether Petitioner’s injury meets all criteria for a Table
SIRVA. However, in the light of the above finding of fact and my preliminary review of the
evidence overall, Petitioner shall proceed with preparing a demand for Respondent’s
consideration if he has not already done so. I understand that Respondent cannot provide
a response to this demand until he has formulated his position. However, the parties
should strive to be in a position to immediately discuss damages once Respondent
indicates he is amenable to consideration of Petitioner’s demand after Respondent’s
review is complete. In addition, it is sensible for Petitioner to calculate his likely damages
as quickly as possible in any case pending in SPU.
Accordingly:
• By no later than Monday, August 15, 2022, Petitioner shall file a status
report providing the following information:
o Whether a demand has been provided to Respondent’s counsel;
o Petitioner’s current treatment status and condition;
o Whether all updated medical records have been filed; and
o A list of each component of damages allegedly suffered by Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01029-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/13/2023) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 43 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-01029V
UNPUBLISHED
AARON COOK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 13, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 5, 2021, Aaron Cook 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 receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
October 21, 2020, he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 29, 2022, I issued Findings of Fact in which I determined that “the October
21, 2020 flu vaccine was most likely administered in Mr. Cook’s right arm.” ECF No. 28
at 6. On February 1, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report stating that (while
1 Because this unpublished 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 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-01029-UNJ Document 43 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 2
preserving his right to appeal the June 29, 2022 Findings of Fact) he “submits that
[P]etitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and
the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”)” for SIRVA. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 2.
Specifically, Respondent stated as follows:
In light of the Chief Special Master’s fact ruling and the medical record evidence
submitted in this case, [the Secretary has] concluded that petitioner suffered a
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table . . . Therefore, based on the record
as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of Facts, respondent
does not dispute that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.”
Id. at 5-6.
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-01029-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-24
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/20/2023) regarding 45 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1029V
UNPUBLISHED
AARON COOK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 20, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for
Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 5, 2021, Aaron Cook 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 receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
October 21, 2020, he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 13, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On March 17, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $75,822.85
(comprised of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering and $822.85 in past unreimbursable
1 Because this unpublished Decision 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 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-01029-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 5
expenses). Proffer at 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.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $75,822.85 (comprised of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering and
$822.85 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-01029-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/24/23 Page 3 of 5
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
AARON COOK,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-1029V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On March 5, 2021, Aaron Cook (“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 he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine he received on October 21, 2020. Petition at 1, 3. On February 1, 2023, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of
Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that the petitioner received the subject
influenza vaccine in his right arm, 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. 35. On February 13, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on
Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for his SIRVA.1 ECF No. 37.
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
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s February 13, 2023, entitlement decision.

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/24/23 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 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 $822.85. 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 following2: a lump sum payment of $75,822.85, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Aaron Cook: $75,822.85
2 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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01029-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/24/23 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
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS
MADELYN E. WEEKS
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) 305-3262
madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov
Dated: March 17, 2023
3