VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01251
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01251
Petitioner: Anne Zaratsian
Filed: 2021-04-19
Decided: 2023-03-03
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-09-09
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 55000

AI-assisted case summary:
Anne Zaratsian filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on September 9, 2020. The respondent, Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not dispute that Ms. Zaratsian's claim met the Table criteria for SIRVA and conceded that she satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. The court issued a ruling on entitlement on January 11, 2023, finding Ms. Zaratsian entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 3, 2023, a decision awarding damages was issued based on a proffer. The respondent proffered an award of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Ms. Zaratsian agreed to. The court awarded this lump sum payment to Ms. Zaratsian, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01251-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-05
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/23/2022) regarding 23 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1251V
UNPUBLISHED
ANNE ZARATSIAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 23, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Howard Dale Mishkind, Mishkind Kulwicki Law Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for
Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On April 19, 2021, Anne Zaratsian 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Table, after receiving the tetanus,
diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on September 9, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2,
4, 12.
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-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find the Tdap vaccine was most likely
administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, as alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Not long after the case’s initiation, Ms. Zaratsian filed the affidavit and medical
records required under the Vaccine Act to support her claim. Exhibits 1-3, ECF Nos. 1, 7;
see Section 11(c). On October 15, 2021, the case was activated and assigned to the
Special Processing Unit (OSM’s process for attempting to resolve certain, likely-to-settle
claims (the “SPU”)). ECF No. 11.
On December 6, 2021, Petitioner was ordered to file any additional records
indicating the site of vaccination – information which was lacking on the filed vaccine
record. ECF No. 14. In response, Petitioner provided a letter from her primary care
provider, dated on December 22, 2021, indicating that Petitioner received the Tdap
vaccine intramuscularly in her left deltoid on September 9, 2020. Exhibit 4, filed Dec. 27,
2021, ECF No. 17. After Respondent’s counsel questioned the sufficiency of this letter,
Petitioner provided a second letter, containing a more detailed accounting of the facts
surrounding the vaccination. Exhibit 5, filed May 22, 2022, ECF No. 21 (letter dated May
19, 2022).
In response to an email communication from the OSM staff attorney assisting me
on this SPU case, the parties confirmed that they did not wish to add any further evidence
or briefing regarding the situs issue. See Informal Remark, dated Aug. 8, 2022. The matter
is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her
injured left deltoid, as alleged.
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
2

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 7
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-
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
3

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 7
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
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 these findings after a complete review of the record, which includes all
medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I highlight the
following:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered from common illnesses and
conditions. Exhibit 2 at 6-213. In 2020, Petitioner was also being seen
routinely by medical treaters because she was pregnant with her third child.
Id. at 68 (listing two prior births).
• While still pregnant on September 9, 2020, Petitioner received the Tdap
vaccine alleged as causal. Exhibit 2 at 214, 226. The vaccine record
provides the date, type, lot number, and method of administration
(intramuscularly) of vaccination and individual administering it. The record
does not identify the site of vaccination. Id.
• Approximately two weeks post-vaccination on September 21st, Petitioner
called her primary care provider (“PCP”), complaining of shoulder pain after
receiving the Tdap vaccine on September 9th. Exhibit 2 at 232. She
indicated that her pain began “that same day and . . . has not subsided.” Id.
The location of Petitioner’s pain was listed as the “injection site.” Id. at 234;
accord. id. at 236. Petitioner indicated that when she received vaccination,
“the nurse stuck her twice because the first time was too high/needle wasn’t
working.” Id. at 236. She requested a referral for treatment of this injury. Id.
at 232.
• The next day on September 22nd, Petitioner was seen by her PCP for pain
at the injection site of her left arm/shoulder. Exhibit 2 at 239. Reporting the
4

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 7
same account of being stuck twice, Petitioner added that the nurse
administering the vaccine was shaky and injected the vaccine “near [the]
top of [the] shoulder joint.” Id. Petitioner was assessed as having acute pain
of the left shoulder and pain at the injection site. Id. at 240. After checking
with her obstetrician, Petitioner was prescribed a Medrol dose pack. Id. at
246.
• At her prenatal visit the next day on September 23rd, Petitioner reported arm
soreness from the Tdap vaccine she received two weeks earlier. Exhibit at
256.
• An ultrasound of Petitioner’s left shoulder was performed on September
23rd. Exhibit 2 at 265-67. Despite normal results, the nurse practitioner
reviewing the ultrasound opined Petitioner was suffering from an injury
caused form of tendinitis, rather than any chronic issues. Id. at 269.
Petitioner was instructed to take the oral steroids prescribed byher PCP the
previous day. Id. at 270.
• The next day on September 24th, Petitioner remotely attended an
appointment with the nurse practitioner. Exhibit 2 at 272. Her left shoulder
pain was again attributed to her Tdap vaccination, and the same detailed
history of the administration – including two attempts and a too-high
injection, was included in this record. Id.
• On September 25th, Petitioner was seen by an orthopedist for “left shoulder
pain after receiving a TD vaccine.” Exhibit 2 at 281. She again reported
achiness which began with her Tdap vaccine and progressively worsened
thereafter. Id. at 279. She received a second cortisone injection. Id. at 281,
284-87.
• Petitioner reported that her left shoulder pain was gradually improving
during a remote appointment on September 30, 2020. Exhibit 2 at 291
• A few days after giving birth on October 30, 2020, Petitioner inquired by
phone, for additional treatment of her shoulder pain. Exhibit 2 at 570 (call
on November 6, 2020. She indicated that the second cortisone injection was
wearing off, and she did not want to wait too long before pursuing additional
treatment. Id.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 7
• On December 2nd, Petitioner participated in a remote orthopedic
appointment for her left shoulder pain. Exhibit 2 at 617. The next day, she
attended a physical therapy evaluation. Exhibit 3 at 36. Petitioner continued
PT through mid-April 2021. Exhibit 3 at 4 (last PT session on April 14th).
• In her affidavit, executed on April 17, 2021, Petitioner indicated that she
received the Tdap vaccine in her left deltoid on September 9, 2020, when
visiting her obstetrician. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 3.
The above medical entries show that, when seeking treatment for her left shoulder
pain, Petitioner consistently attributed her pain to the Tdap vaccine she reported receiving
in her left arm. She provided these histories to her PCP, obstetrician, and orthopedist.
While originating from Petitioner, these statements are memorialized in
contemporaneous records, and should therefore be afforded greater weight than any
subsequent assertion or witness statement. The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical
records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain
information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of
medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Thus, and even
though the record in question simply memorializes what the petitioner said at the time, its
contemporaneous nature makes it somewhat more trustworthy than after-the-fact witness
statements prepared in connection with this matter.
The vaccine record clearly establishes that Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine on
September 9, 2020. Thereafter, when seeking medical care for her left shoulder pain,
Petitioner consistently attributed the source of her pain to the Tdap vaccine she described
as improperly administered in her left deltoid. There is a dearth of evidence that the
vaccine was administered in any other location. I thus determine, based on the record as
a whole, that preponderant evidence establishes that the Tdap vaccine to which Petitioner
attributes her SIRVA was most likely administered in her left deltoid on September 9,
2020.
V. Scheduling Order
I expect the HHS review in this case to be completed in late 2022. While awaiting
the review, Petitioner should finalize a demand and should convey the demand, along
with any supporting documentation, to Respondent.
Petitioner shall file any updated medical records and a status report
regarding her demand, supporting documentation, and current condition by no
later than Wednesday, September 28, 2022.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 7 of 7
Respondent shall file a status report providing his tentative position
regarding the merits of Petitioner’s claim or, at a minimum, an updated estimate of
the timing of the HHS review and assessment of the completeness of the
supporting documentation for any conveyed demand by no later than Friday,
October 28, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01251-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/11/2023) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1251V
UNPUBLISHED
ANNE ZARATSIAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 11, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus, Diphtheria,
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Howard Dale Mishkind, Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Beachwood, OH, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 19, 2021, Anne Zaratsian 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on September 9, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner
further alleges that she received the Tdap vaccine in the United States, that she suffered
the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any
other party has filed a civil case or received compensation for her SIRVA injury. Id. at ¶¶
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-01251-UNJ Document 39 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2
2, 11-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
Because the vaccine record in this case did not indicate the site of vaccination,3 I
issued a fact ruling on August 23, 2022, finding the Tdap vaccine was most likely
administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder, as alleged. ECF No. 23. Thereafter, Respondent
filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending compensation be awarded in this case. Rule 4(c)
Report at 1, Jan. 9, 2023, ECF No. 30. While reserving his right to appeal my fact ruling,
Respondent “ha[s] concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.”
Id. at 6. Furthermore, he “does not dispute that that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 7.
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
3 See Exhibit 2 at 214, 226 (vaccine record).
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01251-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-03
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/25/2023) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1251V
UNPUBLISHED
ANNE ZARATSIAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 25, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Howard Dale Mishkind, Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Beachwood, OH, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 19, 2021, Anne Zaratsian 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on September 9, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 4. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 11, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for her SIRVA. On January 24, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00,
representing compensation for her pain and suffering. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer,
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-01251-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 5
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 $55,000.00, representing compensation for her pain and suffering
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-01251-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/03/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
ANNE ZARATSIAN,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-1251
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On April 19, 2021, Anne Zaratsian (“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 a tetanus-
diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on September 9, 2020. Petition at 1-2. On
August 23, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued his Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner
received the Tdap vaccination in her left arm. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
(ECF #23). On January 9, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”)
filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s
Findings of Fact 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. Vaccine
Rule 4(c) Report at 2, fn. 1 (ECF #30). On January 11, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Case 1:21-vv-01251-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/03/23 Page 4 of 5
issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for
her left SIRVA.1 See Ruling on Entitlement (ECF #31).
I. Items of Compensation
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$55,000.00 for all damages, consisting of pain and suffering. This amount represents all
elements of compensation to which petitioner would be 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 damages
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: a lump sum payment of $55,000.00 for
pain and suffering in the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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 January 11, 2023, entitlement ruling.
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-01251-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/03/23 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Nina Y. Ren
NINA Y. REN
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) 305-3781
Nina.Ren@usdoj.gov
DATED: January 24, 2023
3