VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01069 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01069 Petitioner: Katherine Murphy Filed: 2021-03-16 Decided: 2026-03-09 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-09-19 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Katherine Murphy filed a petition on March 16, 2021, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 19, 2020. The claim proceeded in the Special Processing Unit. Respondent initially opposed compensation, but after reviewing additional medical records filed by petitioner, conceded entitlement. The Rule 4(c) report stated that Ms. Murphy's injury was consistent with Table SIRVA and that the legal prerequisites for compensation were satisfied. Chief Special Master Corcoran granted entitlement on March 9, 2026. The public ruling does not provide a detailed treatment narrative, and damages had not yet been awarded in the public record reviewed for this update. Ms. Murphy was represented by Christopher H. Batista of Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A. in Washington, D.C. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on September 19, 2020 allegedly causing Table SIRVA. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; DAMAGES PENDING. Respondent initially opposed compensation but conceded after reviewing additional medical records, stating the injury was consistent with Table SIRVA and legal prerequisites were met. Petition filed March 16, 2021; entitlement decision by Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran on March 9, 2026. Attorney: Christopher H. Batista, Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01069-0 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-09 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/09/2026) regarding 80 Ruling on Entitlement, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01069-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1069V KATHERINE MURPHY Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 9, 2026 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 16, 2021, Katherine Murphy 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 19, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 18. Petitioner also alleged that she received the vaccine within the United States and that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 19. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. (cid:3) 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-01069-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 2 Although Respondent initially opposed compensation (ECF No. 77), after reviewing the additional medical records provided by Petitioner (Exs. 41-44, ECF No. 78), he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 79. Specifically, Respondent “has concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that based on the record as it now stands, [P]etitioner 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(cid:3) (cid:3) ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01069-cl-extra-11308155 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-09 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10840808 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1069V KATHERINE MURPHY Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 9, 2026 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 16, 2021, Katherine Murphy 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 19, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 18. Petitioner also alleged that she received the vaccine within the United States and that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 19. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.  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). Although Respondent initially opposed compensation (ECF No. 77), after reviewing the additional medical records provided by Petitioner (Exs. 41-44, ECF No. 78), he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 79. Specifically, Respondent “has concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that based on the record as it now stands, [P]etitioner 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