VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00008
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00008
Petitioner: Elizabeth Cantrell
Filed: 2022-03-28
Decided: 2025-04-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-24
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Elizabeth Cantrell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on September 24, 2020. She had no prior history of shoulder pain. Approximately two weeks after the vaccination, she began experiencing pain and stiffness in her left shoulder, which was diagnosed as adhesive capsulitis. Petitioner submitted medical records and sworn declarations detailing her symptoms and their onset shortly after the vaccination. Respondent did not contest that Petitioner had no prior shoulder issues, that her pain was limited to the left shoulder, or that there was no other condition explaining her symptoms. The court found that Petitioner's pain likely occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, satisfying the Table criteria for SIRVA. Although Respondent argued about the precise onset timing and the weight of Petitioner's testimony, the court found preponderant evidence for entitlement. The court ruled that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, with the damages to be determined later.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00008-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-28
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/28/2025) regarding 28 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-08V
UNPUBLISHED
ELIZABETH CANTRELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 28, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2022, Elizabeth Cantrell 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”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 24, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
For the reasons set forth below, I find Petitioner entitled to compensation.
1 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 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 6
I. Relevant Procedural History
Following the filing of this case, the parties began informal settlement discussions
on July 5, 2023, but ultimately concluded that settlement was unlikely. A motion for a
ruling on the record and brief in support of damages was thereafter filed on October 30,
20213. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages
(“Pet. Mot.”), ECF No. 24. Respondent filed a response and a Rule 4(c) Report on
December 8, 2023. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Response to Petitioner’s Motion
for Ruling on the Record (“Resp.”), ECF No. 25. Petitioner filed a reply on December 22,
2023. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record
and Brief in Support of Damages (“Reply”), ECF No. 27.
The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
On September 24, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder. Ex.
Ex. 1 at 1. She had no prior history of shoulder pain or issues. A little less than three
months later (December 15, 2020), she saw her primary care provider for an annual
exam. Ex. 4 at 5. She now reported left shoulder pain “since her flu shot a couple months
ago.” Id. She also stated she was working out five days a week and weight training. Id. at
5-8.
Almost three more months passed before Petitioner again sought treatment for her
shoulder issues. On March 2, 2021, she went to an orthopedist complaining of pain and
stiffness in her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 14. Petitioner reported she received the flu vaccine
in September, and “it was a week or 2 later when she started having the pain and stiffness
of the shoulder.” Id. The pain was described as intermittent, but “getting worse”, and that
it “gets up to about 6/10.” Id. An examination showed reduced range of motion and
positive Hawkins sign. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis and referred
to physical therapy. Id.
At a follow-up on March 30, 2021, Petitioner reported pain “since September” that
was “possibly” related to the flu vaccine. Ex. 3 at 10. Her symptoms had not changed,
and a physical exam yielded results similar to the March 2nd examination. Id. No other
medical records were filed in this matter relevant to the claim.
Petitioner has submitted two sworn declarations in support of her Petition. Ex. 2,
5. In the first, she explained that she felt pain when the vaccine was administered, and
“the following day, my shoulder pain continued to increase in intensity.” Ex. 2 at 2. She
2

Case 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 3 of 6
also described how her injury has affected her daily life. Her second witness statement
reiterates the contention that her shoulder pain began the day of her vaccination, which
she thought “would go away on its own eventually”. Ex. 5 at 2.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the
duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a
petitioner must 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 an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). 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).
3 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
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).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 4 of 6
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
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 & 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, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
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 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. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain her Symptoms
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner meets this criterion. I find
4

Case 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 5 of 6
that she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her
left shoulder that would explain her symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on December 15, 2020. Ex. 4 at 5. Her
doctor noted Petitioner had “left shoulder pain since her flu shot….” Id. Thereafter, she
linked her shoulder pain to her flu shot. Ex. 3 at 14 (stating her pain started after her flu
vaccine); id. at 10 (reporting pain “since September” that was possibly related to the flu
vaccine).
Petitioner’s affidavit corroborates the onset timeline, stating that her pain started
when she received the vaccination. Ex. 2 at 2, Ex. 5 at 2. Further, Petitioner stated she
delayed seeking treatment because she assumed it would go away. Ex. 5 at 2. It is
common for SIRVA petitioners to delay seeking treatment, thinking the injury will resolve
on its own, especially since patients are often told by medical providers at the time of
vaccination to expect some soreness and pain for a period of time after.
Respondent argues that Petitioner delayed in seeking treatment, and stated at
least once that her pain began one or more weeks post-vaccination (which if true would
be inconsistent with the SIRVA onset requirement). Resp. at 4. Further, he contends that
witness statement evidence should be given little weight because they were prepared
over a year after the events. Id. While this record is sparse, a finding of proper onset can
be made based on such a record. Further, Program petitioners are not required to marshal
records setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day and hour that their
onset manifested. As noted above, Petitioner linked her shoulder pain to the September
24, 2019, flu vaccine.
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence (although just barely) that establishes
the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours
of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this
aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest otherwise.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00008-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/28/25 Page 6 of 6
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on
September 24, 2020, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 1; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). Further, Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury
for more than six months. Ex. 3 at 10; see Section 11(c)(1)(D). There is no evidence that
Petitioner has collected a civil award for her injury. Ex. 2 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of
prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
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
6