VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01999
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01999
Petitioner: Mary Young
Filed: 2021-10-12
Decided: 2025-07-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-15
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Mary Young filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 15, 2019. The case was dismissed because the court found that Ms. Young failed to provide sufficient proof of the severity of her injury, which requires demonstrating residual effects for more than six months after vaccination. Ms. Young's first post-vaccination treatment for left shoulder pain occurred five days after the flu shot, where she received a Kenalog injection. However, her primary care provider noted the pain was likely temporary. She had subsequent visits for unrelated issues, during which she did not report shoulder pain, creating an 11-month gap in treatment for her shoulder. While she later sought orthopedic care and physical therapy for her shoulder, the court found her reports of ongoing pain were inconsistent with contemporaneous medical records, such as full range of motion noted on examination despite her complaints. Her explanation for the treatment gap, citing feeling unheard by a previous provider and the COVID-19 pandemic, was not fully persuasive given the medical records and her ability to attend telehealth appointments. Ultimately, the court concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Young suffered residual effects of her alleged SIRVA injury beyond November 2019, leading to the dismissal of her claim.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01999-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-30
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/25/2025) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1999V
MARY YOUNG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 25, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
On October 12, 2021, Mary Young 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, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
she received on November 15, 2019. Petition at ¶ 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 2 of 10
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has provided insufficient proof of
severity of injury, as required for all Vaccine Act claims. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).3
Petitioner is therefore not entitled to compensation, and the matter is appropriately
dismissed.
I. Relevant Procedural History and the Parties’ Arguments
Respondent determined in the spring of 2023 that this matter was not appropriate
for compensation. ECF No. 20. Respondent thereafter filed his Rule 4(c) Report defending
this case on June 29, 2023. Respondent’s Report, ECF No. 22. I thereafter issued an
Order to Show Cause, noting that the evidence revealed significant deficiencies in
Petitioner’s case related to her ability to establish the statutory six-month “severity
requirement.” See generally ECF No. 23.
In response (and after receiving one extension of time, ECF No. 25), Petitioner
submitted a written response brief – but no additional evidence bearing on the issue of
severity. ECF No. 26. In her brief, she argued that she can establish severity, maintaining
that she sought treatment for her left shoulder pain “through July 2021.” Id. at 11. And
when she returned to care following an 11-month gap, she “did not make any mention of
any other trauma to her left arm and relates her pain directly back to her flu shot.” Id.
(citing Ex. 3 at 19; Ex. 4 at 16-19). More so, Petitioner argued that she provided a reason
for her gap in treatment – the COVID-19 Pandemic caused her to deal with her pain at
home. Id. at 11-12 (citing Ex. 6 at 1).4
Respondent thereafter filed his reply to Petitioner’s brief in May 2024. ECF No. 28.
Among other things,5 Respondent maintained that any medical concerns Petitioner
experienced in November 2019 had resolved within six months of vaccination. ECF No.
28 at 8 (citing Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)). Respondent also relied on the existence of a
substantial temporal gap in the medical records during which Petitioner did not report
ongoing symptoms (despite opportunities to do so). Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2 at 141-43, 149-
76). And Petitioner had complaints of a different nature after the treatment gap. Id. at 8
(comparing Ex. 2 at 151, 162, 170; with Ex. 4 at 16-17). Finally, Respondent asserted
that given the contradictions between Petitioner’s affidavits and the contemporaneous
3 Petitioner does not allege, nor would the evidence support, either alternative for establishing the severity
requirement: that the alleged injury resulted in death, or “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.”
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(ii), (iii). Rather, this case turns on Petitioner’s inability to prove six months of post-onset
sequelae.
4 Petitioner otherwise asserted that she could establish either a Table SIRVA claim or one of causation-in-
fact. ECF No. 26 at 7-14.
5 Respondent also argued Petitioner cannot establish a Table SIRVA, as none of her medical providers
ever recorded reduced ROM deficits. ECF No. 28 at 5, n.2, 10 (internal citations omitted).
2

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 3 of 10
medical records, her statements cannot be relied upon for a favorable severity finding. Id.
at 6-9 (citing Ex. 6; Ex. 2 at 149-52, 155-67, 170-76).
Petitioner filed a supplemental responsive brief in June 2024, reiterating her
arguments as to severity – specifically, that her post-gap treatment records support the
existence of ongoing pain during the gap in treatment. ECF No. 29 at 1-2 (citing Ex. 3 at
19). She also argued that the Vaccine Act does not require a petitioner to have
experienced consistent symptoms throughout the six-month period. Id. at 2. The issue of
severity is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Contemporaneous Medical Records
Petitioner received the flu vaccine alleged as causal on November 15, 2019, while
visiting her primary care provider (“PCP”). Ex. 1. Petitioner’s first post-vaccination
treatment event for left shoulder pain occurred on November 20, 2019, five days post
vaccination, with another provider at her PCP’s office. Ex. 2 at 168; Ex. 3 at 38. The chief
complaint was listed as “[a]llergic [r]eaction (flu shot last Friday at ten).” Ex. 2 at 168.
Petitioner reported “left arm pain following flu vaccination that she obtained [] on []
11/15/2019.” Ex. 3 at 38. She endorsed discomfort in the anterior/posterior shoulder joint
region “that is exacerbated upon anterior posterior movement . . . and when lifting/raising
arm.” Id. Petitioner denied swelling and “any pain at actual puncture site of left deltoid
region.” Id.
A musculoskeletal examination revealed tenderness on palpation with anterior and
posterior rotation of the left arm, but normal range of motion (“ROM”). Ex. 3 at 40.
Petitioner was assessed with “shoulder joint painful on movement, left,” and her PCP
administered a Kenalog injection. Id. at 41. The PCP noted that Petitioner “reviewed all
at [sic] adverse reactions to influenza vaccine including arthralgia[; Petitioner was]
educated this is most likely temporary.” Id. (emphasis added). The PCP also noted the
Kenalog injection was administered to address Petitioner’s left shoulder and back pain.
Id. Petitioner was told to monitor her blood sugar levels following the injection and to
return to the PCP’s office if “any further needs are warranted.” Id.
On December 19, 2019, Petitioner returned to her PCP (from whom she received
the subject flu vaccination) for a follow-up regarding her pre-existing diabetes and bipolar
disorder. Ex. 2 at 155-67. Petitioner mentioned she had “[n]ot really [been] checking
sugars” and she had “been dancing a lot for exercise.” Id. at 162. Petitioner did not report
left shoulder complaints, her PCP did not perform an examination specifically of the left
shoulder, and no assessment pertaining to the left shoulder was listed. See id. at 161-64.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 4 of 10
Petitioner attended another regularly scheduled follow-up visit with her PCP on
April 14, 2020 (via telehealth appointment). Ex. 2 at 149. (Notably, the Pandemic had
started by this date). Petitioner complained of a myriad of issues but noted that she had
“[n]o problems with self[-]care. Ha[d] been spending lots of time outside. Sleep is okay
[and she] . . . [c]ontinues to deal with chronic low back pain with known [abnormal]
imaging.” Id. at 151. Under the “review of systems,” Petitioner did not mention left
shoulder complaints. Id. The PCP’s assessment included muscle spasms – for which a
muscle relaxant was prescribed. Id. at 152.
On October 16, 2020 – nearly 11 months after her last visit for left shoulder pain,
and six months since her last visit with any caregiver – Petitioner returned to her PCP for
multiple issues, including “left shoulder pain since flu vaccine last year.” Ex. 2 at 141.
Specifically, she reported “chronic problems since that time which she thinks was due to
the vaccine.” Id. Petitioner also stated that she “[h]ad limited movement and pain for
months. This ha[d] improved from initrial [sic] but isn’t normal[.]” Id. A physical
examination revealed “[n]otable crepitus in left arm should[er] joint without any visible
deformity and full ROM.” Id. at 142. The PCP diagnosed Petitioner with “chronic left
shoulder pain,” and recommended Petitioner receive another annual flu vaccine,6
referring her to an orthopedist. Id. at 143.
Two months later, on December 16, 2020, Petitioner saw an orthopedist for her
left shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 16. Petitioner reported the onset of her shoulder pain “has
been gradual (10/2019),” and the pain was “[p]recipitated after receiving influenza vaccine
2019.” Id. Petitioner explained the “[p]ain [had been] constant past 6 months” – or since
mid-June 2020. Id. She noted the pain was moderate to severe, characterized as a “dull
aching,” and at night the pain interferes with sleep; associated features included muscle
weakness, painful ROM, deceased ROM, and difficulties with activities of daily living
(“ADLs”), including dressing and lifting. Id. Upon examination, Petitioner exhibited
decreased ROM and strength, along with positive impingement signs. Id. at 17. Petitioner
was assessed with rotator cuff impingement syndrome, chronic left shoulder pain, and
shoulder weakness; Petitioner received a repeat steroid injection. Id. at 18.
A note from Petitioner’s February 8, 2021 MRI of the left shoulder reflects that she
had “worsening [left shoulder] symptoms since a year” or since approximately February
2020. Ex. 4 at 22. Petitioner attended various orthopedic follow ups for her left shoulder
pain thereafter. See, e.g., id. at 13-15. She also participated in physical therapy (“PT”),
6 Petitioner’s vaccination record appears to show that Petitioner received a repeat vaccination in the left
deltoid on October 16, 2020 – the same arm as alleged to be injured by the subject vaccination in this case.
Ex. 1 at 1. The parties do not rely on this in their respective arguments regarding severity, so I will not base
my severity determination much on this fact - but it has significance if Petitioner, in fact, received a repeat
vaccination on this date in the alleged injured arm.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 5 of 10
beginning on March 19, 2021. Ex. 5 at 30. The reason for the PT referral was noted as
“left shoulder pain and right low back pain.” Id. She attended nine additional sessions
thereafter (through July 15, 2021), for diagnoses including “other shoulder lesions, left
shoulder,” impingement syndrome of the left shoulder, muscle strain, and arthropathy.
See id. at 23-71. No additional medical records have been filed.
III. Witness Declaration
Only one declaration has been filed in this case – with Petitioner failing to submit
any additional declarative evidence in support of severity in response to my Order to Show
Cause. In it, Petitioner described her appointment for shoulder pain treatment on
November 20, 2019, with her PCP’s office, and recalls that her regular doctor was out on
maternity leave, so she saw another doctor in the same practice. Ex. 6 ¶¶ 4-5. She stated
that this doctor “brushed off [her] concerns and pain because she noticed [Petitioner]
gesticulated a lot with [her] hands.” Id. ¶ 5. Petitioner attested that the doctor told her the
pain “could be a repetitive injury due to those motions.” Id.
As a result of this interaction, Petitioner was “reluctant” to bring up her shoulder
pain again because she “felt that [she] wasn’t being heard and that [her] concerns weren’t
valid.” Ex. 6 ¶ 6. She also attested that thereafter, due to the emergence of the COVID
pandemic and “having to make life changes such as home schooling,” she “dealt with the
pain on [her] own via Tylenol/yoga/meditation/etc. and pushed it as far back as [she] could
in [her] mind.” Id. ¶ 7. When her pain did not resolve and “COVID seemed somewhat
more manageable” she sought continued treatment for her “non-emergent” shoulder pain.
Id. ¶ 8. As of the time of her declaration, authored on October 4, 2021, Petitioner stated
that she was continuing at-home exercises “several times a week.” Id. ¶ 9. No additional
affidavit and/or witness declaration evidence has been submitted.
IV. Applicable Legal Standard
Petitioners carry the burden of establishing the matters required in the petition by
a preponderance of the evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). One such requirement is
“documentation demonstrating that [the petitioner]7 ... suffered the residual effects or
complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than
6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see also Black v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the “potential
petitioner” must not only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional threshold, by
“submitting supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that a special
7 Or other vaccinee, e.g., a minor or other person who is unable to represent his or her own interests, on
behalf of whom the claim is brought.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 6 of 10
master has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case”), aff’d, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(internal citations omitted).
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the
availability of the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from
taking a vaccine.” H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2313–1, 2313–373, cited in Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Act prohibits finding a petition requirement “based on the claims of a petitioner
alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section 13(a)(1).
Medical records must be considered, see Section 13(b)(1), and are generally afforded
substantial weight. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). 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)). However, the
Federal Circuit has 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).
It is thus certainly the case that factual matters required to prove elements of a
Vaccine Act claim may be established by a mix of witness statements and record proof,
with the special master required to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184 (2013) (citing Section 12(d)(3);
Vaccine Rule 8), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Analysis
I note preliminarily that Petitioner not only had an opportunity to prepare her claim
prior to filing, but was put on notice over the subsequent duration of the case that severity
was an issue to be addressed. Yet even after Respondent submitted his formal position
in his Rule 4(c) Report (and after issuance of my subsequent Order to Show Cause),
Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence or established why additional time is
merited to do so. Petitioner has thus now had a “full and fair opportunity” to support her
position. Vaccine Rule 3(b).
There appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on
November 15, 2019, and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that
her residual symptoms continued for more than six months thereafter from the onset of
6

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 7 of 10
her symptoms. See, e.g., Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014
WL 3889070, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
30, 2012) (dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's Guillain-Barré
syndrome resolved less than two months after onset). Respondent has not disputed that
Petitioner can establish the onset of her post-vaccination symptoms occurred within 48
hours of the subject vaccination. See, e.g., ECF No. 28 at 5, n.2. Thus, she would also
need to establish her shoulder injury was extant as of May 17, 2020, at the latest.
The record lacks preponderant evidence in favor of that finding. Prior to the
significant gap in treatment, Petitioner had only one visit with a treater in her PCP’s office
on November 20, 2019 (just five days post vaccination). Ex. 3 at 38. While she did receive
a Kenalog injection for her left shoulder pain during this visit – a factor supporting the
conclusion that Petitioner’s treater expected her injury to continue for a period of time
thereafter – the visit notes also reflect that the injection was administered also in treatment
of Petitioner’s concurrent lower back pain. Id. at 41. It thus is not clear that this injection
was administered solely to remedy Petitioner’s left shoulder symptoms going forward. In
addition, the treater communicated to Petitioner that her shoulder symptoms were likely
“temporary,” but that she could return if “any further needs are warranted.” Id. A lack of
recommended ongoing treatment specific to the left shoulder following this injection
suggests that Petitioner’s treater thought her left shoulder symptoms did not require
much, if any, formal additional medical treatment.
Other aspects of the record also do not corroborate allegations of ongoing pain.
Petitioner continued to seek care for non-shoulder related ailments during this extensive
11-month gap in treatment (calling into question why she did not also seek shoulder
treatment). Thus, Petitioner sought treatment twice during the gap – once on December
19, 2019, and then on April 14, 2020 (via a telehealth visit). Ex. 2 at 149, 160; Ex. 3 at
23-24, 29-31. Both of these visits were notably with her PCP, from whom she received
the subject vaccination and at whose office she previously sought care for alleged
vaccine-related pain. The purpose of those visits was to follow up regarding her pre-
existing diabetes and bipolar disorder (among other things). See id. Petitioner did not
mention shoulder pain or related symptoms at either of these visits, however.
It is particularly notable that during the April 14, 2020 telehealth PCP visit,
Petitioner noted she “continues to deal with chronic low back pain” but did not mention
any other musculoskeletal complaints, such as the shoulder pain she alleges to have
been experiencing at that time. Compare Ex. 3 at 24, with Ex. 6. This is therefore not a
case where Petitioner saw specialists during the gap in treatment – in which
circumstances I would not necessarily expect her to have complained of shoulder-related
7

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 8 of 10
symptoms. The visits to the same PCP who administered the vaccine, and whose office
initially treated pain related to it, provided opportunities to follow up on the subject -
especially if the pain was continuing throughout this time, as Petitioner alleges in her
declaration. See generally Ex. 6.
More problematically, the medical records following the gap do not entirely support
the conclusion that Petitioner had been even intermittently experiencing vaccine-
associated pain. For instance, on October 16, 2020, while Petitioner complained of “left
shoulder pain since flu vaccine last year[,]” and that she “[h]ad limited movement and pain
for months,” a physical examination revealed full ROM, and the treater even
recommended a repeat vaccination – which the record suggests may have occurred. See
Ex. 2 at 141-42; see also Ex. 1 at 1.8 Petitioner’s reports are inconsistent with the findings
on examination and thus uncorroborated by the contemporaneous medical records here.
Additionally, the record from December 16, 2020, shows that Petitioner reported
onset in “10/2019 . . . [p]recipitated after receiving [an] influenza vaccine [in] 2019. Pain
constant [for] 6 months.” Ex. 4 at 16. While Petitioner related her pain back to her flu
vaccination during this visit, she describes both the date of her vaccine and the duration
of her injury incongruously (since the subject vaccination was in fact administered in
November 2019, and Petitioner’s report of pain for six months as of December 2020 would
support that pain as being present since June 2020). Petitioner’s reporting during this visit
does not support the conclusion that she had experienced ongoing pain through May
2020. Thus, these post-gap records do not bulwark Petitioner’s severity arguments all
that much.
I also do not find that the declaration supplied by Petitioner overcomes the existing
medical record discussed above, even if it merits some (albeit minimal) weight. For
instance, Petitioner’s purported explanation for the 11-month gap in care is reasonable
but not entirely persuasive in light of the entire record. She maintains that she originally
did not return to care because she felt her treater had previously “brushed off” her
concerns and rather attributed them to gesticulating with her hands. Ex. 6 ¶¶ 5-6. But
these allegations are wholly inconsistent with the medical record of the November 2019
visit. Instead of attributing Petitioner’s shoulder pain to over-gesticulation, as Petitioner
contends, Petitioner’s treater explicitly noted that Petitioner had been educated on an
“adverse reaction[] to [the] influenza vaccine.” Ex. 3 at 41. Petitioner’s contentions in her
declaration regarding this visit, and her subsequent explanation as to why she did not
continue treatment for her alleged vaccine-related shoulder pain, are inconsistent with the
contemporaneous medical records.
8 See supra, note 6.
8

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 9 of 10
Likewise, Petitioner’s explanation that the COVID-19 Pandemic played a role in
her decision to forego care for a period of time has some merit. But the Pandemic did not
manifest most prominently in the U.S. until March of 2020 – approximately four months
after Petitioner stopped seeking shoulder-related care. And Petitioner was able to attend
a telehealth visit with her PCP in April 2020. Ex. 3 at 24. Again, she had an opportunity
to address her shoulder concerns, even during the Pandemic, but she did not so act.
Additionally, Petitioner’s declaration does not mention or address the steroid shot
she received to treat her alleged vaccine-related shoulder pain on November 20, 2019.
See Ex. 3 at 41. As I noted in my Order to Show Cause, the fact that Petitioner received
a steroid shot could reasonably explain a temporary treatment lapse in care (i.e., if she
received relief from the injection for a period of time as intended) – but it would require
additional context to conclude that the steroid caused a pause in her pain. ECF No. 23 at
4. I explained the deficiency in the record created by this lack of context, and outlined
ways for Petitioner to overcome it, including by describing that she received the injection,
stating whether she experienced relief in her shoulder from said injection (no matter how
slight), and/or how long the relief lasted before the alleged pain returned – if at all. See
id. Such additional information could have been evidence of ongoing pain during the gap
in care and up until the six-month “cut-off.” Without it, however, I cannot glean the
significance of Petitioner’s receipt of this steroid injection – especially because the reason
for this treatment was her shoulder and back pain. See Ex. 3 at 41.
Indeed, a description of pain precisely during the relevant treatment gap (including
through May 17, 2020) is something that Petitioner could well have provided useful
commentary upon following my Order to Show Cause. Given Petitioner’s limited post-
vaccination care – especially before the gap in treatment, some contextual medical
explanation was needed, but she (nor any other fact witness) did not provide it. And,
Petitioner’s limited assertions of ongoing pain are otherwise uncorroborated, as she did
not submit any supplemental witness declarations – even after my Order to Show Cause.
The record, therefore, does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged SIRVA injury beyond November
2019. And Petitioner has failed to link the pain she experienced in October 2020 or
thereafter to her earlier pain and the flu vaccine she received.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has presented insufficient proof to establish the six-month severity
requirement. Section 11(c)(1)(D). Therefore, she is ineligible to pursue compensation
under the Program. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to
9

Case 1:21-vv-01999-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/30/25 Page 10 of 10
the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
10