VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01327
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01327
Petitioner: Mary Patricia Turner
Filed: 2021-05-06
Decided: 2026-03-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 6, 2021, Mary Patricia Turner filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 17, 2018 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The record also reflected a shingles vaccination around the same visit, and the case focused on whether she could prove the flu vaccine was administered in the affected left shoulder and whether her pain began within the Table timeframe.

Respondent recommended denial, arguing that the vaccination record stated the flu vaccine was administered in the right deltoid and that Ms. Turner could not prove onset within forty-eight hours. Ms. Turner moved for a ruling on the record. The medical chronology included a post-vaccination orthopedic visit where she reported no previous left shoulder problems and described left shoulder pain shortly after vaccination. Examination showed limited range of motion, and she received a corticosteroid injection into the subdeltoid bursa. She later returned for follow-up after the injection helped but wore off.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Ms. Turner had proven the elements of a Table SIRVA claim by preponderant evidence and granted entitlement on March 19, 2026. The public decision resolved entitlement only; damages were not yet awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on September 17, 2018, causing Table SIRVA; ENTITLEMENT GRANTED, damages pending. Age 65. Respondent disputed left-arm administration and 48-hour onset because the vaccine record listed right deltoid. Evidence included prompt left shoulder complaints, no prior left shoulder history in orthopedic record, limited ROM, subdeltoid bursa steroid injection, and follow-up after temporary relief. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran granted entitlement. Petition filed May 6, 2021; decision March 19, 2026.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01327-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-20
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/19/2026) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1327V
MARY PATRICIA TURNER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 19, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 6, 2021, Mary Patricia Turner 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 a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
September 17, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Ruling/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 Ruling/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-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 9
Because the parties could not informally resolve the issue of entitlement, Petitioner
filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record. For the reasons set forth below, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
On July 21, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that
Petitioner’s claim be denied, arguing that Petitioner could not prove by preponderant
evidence that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of her flu vaccination, nor could
she prove that she received the flu vaccine in her left deltoid (as the vaccination record
stated that the vaccine was administered in the right deltoid). Id. at 6. On August 3, 2024,
I issued a preliminary ruling stating that I was likely to find in favor of Petitioner on
entitlement as the record stood, but encouraged the parties to informally resolve the case.
ECF No. 24.
The parties attempted over the next year to settle the matter but were
unsuccessful. On March 6, 2025, I issued a scheduling order instructing Petitioner to brief
entitlement. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on April 21,
2025. ECF No. 42. Respondent filed a Response on June 5, 2025 “(Resp.”). Petitioner
filed a Reply on June 20, 2025 (“Reply”). This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the medical records, the Petition,
declarations and affidavits, and in the parties’ respective briefings. In summary, Ms.
Turner was 65 years old when she received the flu and shingles vaccines at a Walgreens
Healthcare Clinic on September 17, 2018.3 Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1 at 1-3; Ex. 5 at 64-65. The
vaccination record is marked with the handwritten notation “RA,” presumably referring to
the “right arm,” although Ms. Turner states that she received both vaccines in her left
deltoid. Ex. 7 at 1. Ms. Turner had no history of right or left shoulder dysfunction prior to
vaccination. See Ex. 4; Ex. 5 at 1-61.
Ms. Turner has stated that when she received the flu vaccine, “I started to have
pain in the left upper arm almost immediately. Within the first two days, I was in much
pain in the area where the vaccines were administered.” Ex. 7 at 1. In her supplemental
affidavit, Petitioner explains that she “tried dealing with the pain on my own, but the pain
never went away. Approximately two weeks later, I called my doctor with complaints of
pain in my left shoulder that resulted from the vaccine.” Ex. 8 at 1.
3 The vaccination record states that Ms. Turner received the Shingrix (shingles) vaccine in her right deltoid
at this visit. Ex. 1 at 3.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 9
On October 4, 2018 (now 17 days after vaccination), Ms. Turner called the OSF
Center for Health and left a message, stating:
Steve and I had our flu shot and first Shingrix shot on Monday, September
17th at Walgreens. I am still having pain in my left shoulder/arm and I am
wondering if this is common. Both shots were in the left upper arm. During
the day, the pain is tolerable but the pain is waking me up most nights. We
leave for Italy on Monday, October 15th so I hope this clears up by then. I
have tried Aleve or ibuprofen for a few days with not much relief…
Ex. 5 at 64 (emphasis added). Later that same day, Ms. Turner’s call was returned by
Jessica Diane Blair, PAC, who recommended that Ms. Turner “elevate arm, alternate
warm and cold compresses and take Aleve one tab in the morning and one at night for
the next 3 days,” and that, “if not improving by next Monday, recommend that she make
an appointment to be seen prior to leaving for Italy.” Id. at 63.
Five days later, on October 9, 2018, Ms. Turner again called OSF Center for
Health, complaining that the vaccine sensitivity in her arm that was “persistent.” Ex. 5 at
63. Petitioner stated that her shoulder was not “as painful as it was initially, but is still
painful.” Id. at 63. Ms. Turner also stated that “she takes Aleve am and pm and tylenol
during the day with no noted change. Is able to sleep thru the night now, and not waking
up like she was previously with arm pain.” Id. at 63.
The next day, on October 10, 2018, Ms. Turner went in person to OSF Center for
Health, where she was seen by Kristen Chambers-Damm, M.D. for complaints of “left arm
pain.” Ex. 6 at 3. Petitioner reported she had been experiencing pain in the left deltoid
since receiving the flu and shingles vaccines three weeks prior. Id. at 1. At that time, Dr.
Chambers-Damm noted that Petitioner “[h]ad both vaccines in the same left arm.
Describes it as a soreness across the deltoid. First couple of days after the is [sic] vaccine
had significant soreness and pain in that left deltoid.” Ex. 6 at 3; Ex. 5 at 65. Dr. Chambers-
Damm concluded, “likely muscle bruise from 2 vaccines same muscle and then limited
movement of that arm initially secondary to pain. Trial exercises in addition to ice, heat,
tylenol, ibuprofen.” Id. at 67. On exam, Ms. Turner had full range of motion (“ROM”) but
only 90 degrees of abduction in the left arm. Ex. 6 at 2-3. Dr. Chambers-Damm’s
assessment was that Ms. Turner suffering from a muscle bruise from two vaccines into
the same muscle, and she recommended ice, heat, over-the counter medication, and a
trial of exercises. Id. at 3.
Almost two months later, on December 5, 2018, Ms. Turner went to OSF
Rehabilitation Sheridan for an initial consultation with Sean McGinn, OT. Ex. 2 at 13. Ms.
Turner reported that she continued to experience left shoulder pain after receiving a flu
3

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 9
vaccine in the upper arm. Id. OT McGinn reported, “Incident Onset Reported: 09/17/18,”
and that “[t]he patient’s affected side is: left,” and “[t]he patient believes the problem was
caused by ‘getting a flu injection in the upper arm.’” Id. On exam, Ms. Turner displayed a
reduced range of motion of the left deltoid. Id. at 14. OT McGinn’s assessment was
“[a]cute pain in left shoulder.” Id. at 14.
Between December 5-27, 2018, Ms. Turner attended a total of four occupational
therapy (OT) sessions. Id. at 27. On January 3, 2019, an x-ray of Petitioner’s left shoulder
evidenced mild left acromioclavicular degenerative joint disease. Ex. 6 at 74.
On January 16, 2018, Ms. Turner went to Midwest Orthopedic Center and was
seen by Michael S. Merkley, M.D. for complaints of left shoulder pain following flu vaccine
administration on September 17, 2018. Ex. 3 at 113. Dr. Merkley noted, “[s]he got a flu
vaccine as well as a shingles vaccine through a Walgreen’s clinic and shortly thereafter
began to develop left shoulder pain. She has no history of previous left shoulder
problems.” Id. On exam, Ms. Turner displayed limited range of motion of the left shoulder
and positive Neer and Hawkins impingement signs. Id. Dr. Merkley assessed Petitioner
with “[s]ubacromial bursitis, left shoulder,” and “SIRVA, left shoulder.” Id. Dr. Merkley
added, “[c]ertainly, this could be a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration given
the timing and relation to her injections.” Id. Ms. Turner received a corticosteroid injection
into the subdeltoid bursa of her left shoulder at this visit. Id. at 113-114.
On March 18, 2019, Ms. Turner returned to Midwest Orthopedic Center for a
follow-up visit where she was seen by Brandon R. Gale, PA-C. Ex. 3 at 111. Petitioner
reported that she had experienced good relief after her prior injection, but that the injection
had worn off. Id. Ms. Turner complained of continued bursal pain and requested another
injection. Id. On examination, Petitioner continued to demonstrate a limited range of
motion and a second intramuscular steroid injection was administered into the left deltoid.
Id. Ms. Turner was also given TheraBand and home exercises. Id.
On May 17, 2019, Ms. Turner returned to Midwest Orthopedic Center, where she
was once again seen by Dr. Merkley. Ex. 3 at 107. Petitioner reported that she continued
to have left shoulder pain despite the steroid injections. Id. Dr. Merkley diagnosed
Petitioner with recalcitrant subacromial bursitis, and an MRI of the left shoulder was
ordered. Id.
On May 28, 2019, Ms. Turner underwent an MRI of her left shoulder which showed
“1. Interstitial laminar fraying infraspinatus with tendinitis and peritendinitis. No microtear.
2. Mild adhesive capsulitis. 3. Subtle anterior labral tear extending inferiorly measuring 1
cm. No paralabral cyst formation.” Ex. 3 at 103.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 9
On July 8, 2019, Ms. Turner returned to Dr. Merkley for a follow-up visit. Ex. 3 at
101. Dr. Merkley reviewed the MRI results and noted, “[i]t shows intact cuff, but there is
peritendinitis and bursitis, especially at the posterior superior cuff. She continues to have
positive Neer and Hawkins impingement signs.” Id. Dr. Merkley assessed “recalcitrant left
shoulder pain” and “SIRVA, left shoulder.” Id. Because conservative methods of treatment
failed, Ms. Turner “elected to undergo arthroscopy with bursal debridement, possible
decompression.” Id.
On August 1, 2019, Ms. Turner underwent “arthroscopy with subacromial
decompression and bursectomy, left shoulder.” Ex. 3 at 84. Both the preoperative and the
postoperative diagnoses were: “1. Recalcitrant left shoulder pain. 2. Shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration, left shoulder.” Id. Dr. Merkley’s surgical indications
noted that Petitioner “has recalcitrant left shoulder pain. This started after receiving a flu
vaccine at the left shoulder.” Ex. 4 at 159.
On August 14, 2019, Ms. Turne returned to Dr. Merkley at Midwest Orthopaedic
Center for her first postoperative check of her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 82. Dr. Merkley noted
that “[t]he left upper extremity shows the incisions are healing well.” Id. Petitioner
subsequently attended 20 additional sessions of OT, which concluded on January 15,
2020, when she was discharged after meeting her goals. Ex. 3 at 33.
On September 5, 2019, Ms. Turner went to OSF Medical Group – Urgent Care
where she was seen by Stephanie L. McWhirter, APN, CNP, for “a rash to the posterior
aspect of the left arm.” Ex. 9 at 1. At the time of the visit, NP McWhirter noted that
Petitioner “had recent surgery to the left shoulder, she had her influenza and shingles
vaccination to that arm and the placement was into the bursa causing the need to have
the bursa removed. That surgery was Aug. 1st this year.” Id. She was prescribed a steroid
cream and instructed to follow up with her PCP. Id. at 4.
On November 4, 2019, Ms. Turner returned to Dr. Merkley at Midwest Orthopaedic
Center for a post-operative follow-up examination. Ex. 3 at 52. Upon physical
examination, Dr. Merkley noted negative impingement signs of the left deltoid and no
painful arc. Id. He noted an impression of “[l]eft shoulder pain,” and “[s]houlder injury
related to vaccine administration, left shoulder.” Id. However Dr. Merkley did “not expect
any long-term residua.” Id.
On January 15, 2020, Ms. Turner to Dr. Merkley for a follow-up visit. Ex. 3 at 35.
Petitioner noted that she was doing well and had no pain. Id. Dr. Merkley also noted that
Petitioner’s “only complaint is that she cannot sleep on her left side.” Id. She was
instructed to follow up as needed. Id.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 9
On September 23, 2020, Ms. Turne returned to OSF Center for Health where she
was seen by Dr. Chambers-Damm for a yearly physical examination. Ex. 5 at 128; Ex. 6
at 53. Dr. Chambers-Damm noted, “[s]urgery last august. For left shoulder. Overall
improved by certain ways she moves it bothers her.” Id. Dr. Chambers-Damm further
noted, “[l]eft shoulder doing okay, some aches once in awhile.” Id.
In her sworn declaration, Ms. Turner states that she still has persistent pain in her
left shoulder area. Ex. 7 at 1. She states that she now needs assistance lifting heavy
items or reaching for high areas in her kitchen. Id. at 2. Ms. Turner states that she still
cannot sleep on her left side and needs to keep a small pillow near her at all times to
sleep or to support her left arm while she is driving. Id. Ms. Turner also states that because
of her left shoulder, she can no longer babysit her grandchild alone, as she cannot lift
them from the crib or in an out of a car seat. She states that the pain and weakness in
her left shoulder has put a great burden on her family. Id.
III. Legal Standards
For compensation to be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No.
90–2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
6

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 7 of 9
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
7

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 8 of 9
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
IV. Ruling on Entitlement
a. SIRVA Objections – Situs and Onset
While Respondent’s opposition is unorganized and cursory, Respondent appears
to lodge two objections to entitlement. First, he objects to situs, arguing that Ms. Turner
received the flu vaccine to her right shoulder and not her left as she asserts. Second, he
contends that there is not preponderant evidence to show that Petitioner experienced
shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccine administration. Opp. at 3-4; Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 6 (ECF 23). Neither objection has sufficient evidentiary support to
undermine Petitioner’s otherwise-preponderant showing.
Regarding situs, although the site of vaccination specified on the vaccine
administration record states that Petitioner received both vaccinations in her right deltoid
(Ex. 1 at 3), Petitioner herself reported left shoulder pain a mere 17 days after vaccination,
specifically identifying her left upper arm as the vaccination situs. Ex. 5 at 64. In every
record thereafter, Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain associated with the
vaccinations. She also received all treatment to her left shoulder, and all Petitioner’s
medical providers evaluated and diagnosed left shoulder symptoms. There is no other
record (other than the record of vaccination) to the contrary. See e.g., Ex. 2 at 13-14, 27;
Ex. 3 at 33-80 (physical therapy records), 85 (records of arthroscopic surgery), 103 (MRI
Report), 107, 111-14 (orthopedic records); Ex. 6 at 1-3, 74 (Xray). Thus, I find that
Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder, as alleged.
Next is the question of whether the record preponderantly establishes 48-hour,
post-vaccination onset. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report states his position:
Petitioner had no documented visits to a medical provider within the 48-hour
post-vaccination period. Rather, the record documents that petitioner first
presented to OSF Center for Health on October 4, 2018, seventeen days
after vaccination, and did not specify when her pain began.
Id. This argument is wholly unpersuasive. Petitioner reported her left shoulder pain less
than three weeks after vaccination, complaining that she was “still” having shoulder pain
after receiving the vaccines on September 17, 2018. Ex. 5 at 64. When she was examined
on October 10, 2019, Petitioner reported that she had “significant soreness and pain in
that left deltoid.” Ex. 6 at 2. This is the most contemporaneous record where Petitioner
specifically reported that she experienced shoulder pain in the 48-hours post vaccination.
8

Case 1:21-vv-01327-UNJ Document 47 Filed 04/20/26 Page 9 of 9
In addition, there are multiple citations throughout the record where Petitioner
stated that her symptoms began contemporaneously with her vaccine administration. See
e.g., Ex. 5 at 65 (noting that Petitioner had “both vaccines in the same left arm. Describes
it as a soreness across the deltoid. First couple of days after the is [sic] vaccine had
significant soreness and pain in that left deltoid”); Ex. 2 at 13 (noting that the incident
onset was “09/17/18”); Ex. 3 at 113 (noting that Petitioner “got a flu vaccine as well as a
shingles vaccine through a Walgreen’s clinic and shortly thereafter began to develop left
shoulder pain.”) Thus, I find in Petitioner’s favor on the issue of onset.
b. Other Requirements
Even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or established
causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional
requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual effects of injury
lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are
established or undisputed. Thus, based upon all of the above, Petitioner has met the
elements for a SIRVA and is entitled to compensation.
Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my ruling, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. A separate
damages order will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9