VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02265
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02265
Petitioner: Christine Vardaro
Filed: 2021-01-05
Decided: 2026-02-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Christine Vardaro filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine administered on October 13, 2020. She recalled her right shoulder aching the day after vaccination, but her pain worsened by the end of that week, making it difficult to move her arm. Her first medical record of treatment was on November 18, 2020 (36 days post-vaccination), where she reported shoulder pain that began one week after the flu shot. Subsequent medical records also linked her pain to the vaccination, but none affirmatively established symptoms within 48 hours of vaccination. The court found that while Petitioner's witness statements supported a claim of onset, they were not sufficient to overcome the contemporaneous medical records indicating onset outside the 48-hour window required for a Table SIRVA claim. Consequently, the court dismissed Christine Vardaro's Table SIRVA claim for failure to prove timely onset, but noted she might have a viable causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02265-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-10
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/05/2026) regarding 49 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2265V
CHRISTINE VARDARO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 5, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Sara DeStefano, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On December 7, 2021, Christine Vardaro 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”) following an influenza ("flu”) vaccine administered on October
13, 2020. Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Fact 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 6
Because Petitioner cannot prove that the onset of her pain more likely than not
began within 48 hours of her flu vaccine, her Table SIRVA claim must be dismissed. She
may, however, have a viable causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated.
I. Relevant Procedural History
The parties reached an impasse in settlement discussions in May 2024. See ECF
No. 37. Respondent next filed his Rule 4(c) Report on June 11, 2024, contending that
“Petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence that the onset of [her] pain occurred
within forty-eight hours of vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 4. Further, Respondent notes
that the first record of treatment indicates onset one week after vaccination and later
records “vaguely” describe onset after vaccination without specificity. Id.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on September 23,
2024. ECF No. 43. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on December 4, 2024, and
Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on December 11, 2024. ECF No. 45-46. The matter is
now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Facts
Record Evidence
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right deltoid on October 13, 2020. Ex. 1 at
3. She recalls that her “right shoulder was aching” the following day, but that she “believed
that pain at the injection site was normal, and assumed the pain would go away in a few
days.” Ex. 10 at ¶3. Her pain worsened “by the end of that week,” when “it became difficult
to move [her] right shoulder and upper arm.” Id.
On October 16, 2020, Petitioner contacted her primary care provider after
concerns for Covid-19 infection exposure. Ex. 3 at 142-143. She had a drive-up Covid-19
test on October 19, 2020. Id. at 139-141.
On November 18, 2020 (36 days after vaccination), Petitioner went to urgent care
for her shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 131. She reported having a “a flu shot done on October
12th” and “that 1 week later she developed some right shoulder pain which she thinks may
have been caused by the flu shot.” Id. She explained that “unless she moves the arm or
tries to lift her arm up there really is no pain.” Id. On exam, she had tenderness anteriorly,
but full range of motion and negative impingement signs. Id. The physician’s assistant
suspected tendinitis, recommended ibuprofen, and referred Petitioner to orthopedics. Id.
at 132.
Petitioner had an appointment with orthopedics scheduled for December 15, 2020,
but she did not attend. Ex. 3 at 109. She saw an orthopedic physician assistant almost a
month later, on January 7, 2021. Id. at 101. She reported “right shoulder pain/stiffness for
2

Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 6
3 months” that “began soon after receiving a flu shot” and gradually worsened. Id. Her
exam was “consistent with adhesive capsulitis” and she was referred to physical therapy.
Id. at 102. She received a steroid injection on February 1, 2021. Id. at 93.
Petitioner began physical therapy on February 5, 2021. Ex. 2 at 8. She reported
“difficulty lifting [her] arm after [her] flu shot” in October 2020. Id. She complained of
difficulty with work activities, such as lifting children and pushing strollers, as well as
washing her hair and dressing. Id. She had impaired range of motion and strength on
exam. Id. at 9. Treatment was planned for ten weeks. Id. at 10. She attended 48 sessions
through January 12, 2022. Id. at 10-98; Ex. 5 at 2-8.
Petitioner followed up with her orthopedist on April 16 and June 11, 2021. Ex. 3 at
77, 83. She received a second steroid injection on June 29, 2021. Id. at 68.
Witness Statements
Petitioner’s friend, Kathleen O’Neil, provided an affidavit on September 18, 2024,
which was filed just before Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record. Ex. 11. Ms. O’Neil
recalled speaking to Petitioner the day after her vaccination. Id. at ¶2. She recalled that
Petitioner advised her not to get a flu shot “because her right arm, where she received
the injection, hurt way more than she expected.” Id. She remembered Petitioner
continuing to mention shoulder pain. Id.
Petitioner’s co-worker, Brenda Lee Hernandez, provided an affidavit on September
16, 2024. Ex. 12. She recalled that when Petitioner returned to class after receiving her
flu shot, “she said her arm hurt and she was obviously uncomfortable.” Id. at ¶3. She
recalled that Petitioner had difficulty with the daily routine at work during the following two
days, and beyond. Id. at ¶4-5.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
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 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 contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
3

Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 6
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. 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 & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later 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 & Human 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human 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).
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
4

Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 6
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
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
Respondent argues that Petitioner has not established Table onset because the
record of Petitioner’s first visit to urgent care clearly indicates onset outside of the required
period. Resp. at 5. Respondent further argues that “Petitioner’s affidavit does not provide
any grounds . . . to discount the probative value of contemporaneous medical record
evidence that was created when Petitioner first sought treatment.” Id. at 6. Finally,
Respondent notes that although later records link Petitioner’s pain to her vaccination,
none contradict the prior record “nor otherwise establish symptoms within forty-eight
hours of vaccination.” Id.
I acknowledge that the standard applied to resolving SIRVA onset disputes is
liberal, and will often permit a determination in a petitioner’s favor, especially in the
absence of contemporaneous medical records to the contrary. However, not every case
can be so preponderantly established, particularly where later-in-time claims of immediate
onset are offset against records created closer to vaccination.
Here, Petitioner described the onset of her pain as one week after her vaccination
the very first time she sought treatment – and barely a month after vaccination. Ex. 3 at
131. Petitioner argues that this record is nevertheless consistent with Table onset –
stating that it “is entirely consistent with Petitioner’s description of how her pain evolved
contained within her affidavit.” Repl. at 4. But the description of an evolving and
progressing pain is inconsistent with the record contention of pain occurring a week after
vaccination. Id. Petitioner’s affidavit does not explain why she reported a one-week onset
if her pain, in fact, actually began with vaccination.
Moreover, although Petitioner did relate her pain to her vaccination during
subsequent visits, she did not report pain that began within 48 hours after her vaccination.
The only other record that provides timing for the onset of Petitioner’s pain is from January
7, 2021 when she stated that she had had right arm pain/stiffness for the previous three
months. Ex. 3 at 102. While Petitioner reported pain “soon after” or “after” her vaccination,
the only record that provides a specific onset places it outside of 48 hours after
vaccination. See Ex. 2 at 8; Ex. 3 at 101. Thus, the relaxed manner in which the Program
construes general assertions of pain beginning vaguely “after” vaccination cannot
overcome affirmative record statements of onset well outside the two-day timeframe set
by the Table.
5

Case 1:21-vv-02265-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 6
Beyond the above, only affidavit testimony supports Table onset. See Ex. 10 at ¶3;
Ex. 11 at ¶2; Ex. 12 at ¶3. There are situations in which compelling testimony may be
more persuasive than written records, such as where records are deemed to be
incomplete or inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775,
779 (2006) (“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should
not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its
application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005) (“[w]ritten records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct.
726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). But to prevail,
testimony must be “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). But
this is not a case with records that use only language such as “after” or “since,” and
Petitioner has not argued that the earliest record is inaccurate. Thus, I do not find in this
case that the witness statements are sufficient to support a decision in Petitioner’s favor
on onset.
Accordingly, I find Petitioner has not preponderantly established that onset of her
pain likely occurred within 48 hours of vaccination – meaning that she cannot proceed in
this action with a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner has, however, a potential causation-in-
fact injury claim, so the matter will be transferred out of SPU in order to evaluate such an
alternative version of the claim.
Conclusion
Because Petitioner has not preponderantly established that the onset of her
shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, she cannot proceed in this action
with a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is therefore dismissed, for the
reasons set forth above. The case will be reassigned to a Special Master outside of SPU.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6