VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00113
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00113
Petitioner: Suzanne Kallin
Filed: 2022-02-03
Decided: 2025-01-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-10
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 30000

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 3, 2022, Suzanne Kallin filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on September 10, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially argued that Ms. Kallin was not entitled to compensation because she could not demonstrate pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination, a requirement for a Table SIRVA claim. Following briefing and a review of the evidence, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on November 12, 2024, finding that Ms. Kallin had established entitlement to compensation. The Special Master determined that Ms. Kallin's testimony, corroborated by her husband and a coworker, along with her early departure from work on the day of vaccination, provided sufficient evidence of pain onset within the required 48-hour window, despite a delay in formal medical evaluation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The medical records indicated symptoms consistent with adhesive capsulitis. The respondent did not raise any other objections to entitlement. Subsequently, on December 20, 2024, the parties filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation. Ms. Kallin was awarded $30,000.00 in pain and suffering, to be paid as a lump sum check. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on January 22, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
Suzanne Kallin, nearly 52 years old, received an influenza vaccine on September 10, 2020. She alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table requiring onset within 48 hours of vaccination. The primary dispute was whether Ms. Kallin's shoulder pain began within this 48-hour window. Ms. Kallin testified that her left shoulder pain began immediately after vaccination and was severe enough to cause her to leave work early that day. This testimony was corroborated by her husband and a coworker. Medical records, obtained over four months post-vaccination due to the COVID-19 pandemic, indicated adhesive capsulitis and reduced range of motion. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, found that Ms. Kallin's testimony, supported by witness statements and her early departure from work, met the preponderance of the evidence standard for establishing the 48-hour onset requirement, even though formal medical documentation of the onset was delayed. The respondent conceded all other requirements for entitlement. The parties stipulated to damages, and on January 22, 2025, Ms. Kallin was awarded $30,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer, and Respondent was represented by Jamica Marie Littles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00113-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-17
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/12/2024) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement,, Scheduling Order, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0113V
SUZANNE KALLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: November 12, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 3, 2022, Suzanne Kallin filed a Petition under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”); see
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner alleges a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her right
arm on September 9, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
Based on review of the evidence, I hereby determine that Petitioner’s right
shoulder pain likely began within 48 hours of vaccination (notwithstanding a treatment
1 Because this 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 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 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 9
delay). Thus, given the lack of any other objections from Respondent, Petitioner has
preponderantly established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim – making her
entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
The case was assigned to the SPU in April 2022. After Respondent completed his
review of the evidence, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, but which
ultimately reached an impasse in March 2024. Accordingly, on May 14, 2024, Respondent
filed his Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner was not entitled to compensation
because “she could not demonstrate 48-hour post-vaccination pain onset. Rule 4(c)
Report (ECF No. 37) at 5. Petitioner’s supplemental affidavit, Ex. 10, was followed by
briefing. Brief filed July 22, 2024 (ECF No. 42); Response filed Sept. 11, 2024 (ECF No.
43); Reply filed Sept. 26, 2024 (ECF No. 44). The matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. 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
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).
2

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 9
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
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
A 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).
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
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he 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 his injury for more than six months, died from his 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 Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 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).
4

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 5 of 9
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
III. Finding of Fact
I make the following onset finding after a complete review of the record (all medical
records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence and briefs filed),
and highlight the following facts:
• Petitioner was born in 1968 (and was thus nearly 52 years old at the time of
vaccination). She was an established patient of Kaiser Permanente, where she
worked as perfusionist,4 and her husband worked as a cardiac surgeon. Ex. 2 at
147.
• Petitioner sometimes asked her husband physician for medical advice before
obtaining a more formal and relevant evaluation. For instance, in 2018 a
dermatologist recorded that Petitioner had a “lip cut no injury 6 months… never
went away. Patient husband… told her she will need to be evaluated.” Ex. 2 at
112. A biopsy of the lip sore identified basal cell carcinoma, prompting two Mohs
surgeries. Id. at 136 – 37, 173, 196 – 97, 318 – 19.
• In contrast in December 2019, Petitioner sought emergency attention promptly
after sustaining a left knee injury – assessed as an ACL tear – in a skiing accident.
Ex. 5 at 6 – 23; Ex. 2 at 539 – 42, 560 – 63. She had no history of left shoulder
pain or dysfunction, however. See generally Ex. 2.
• The at-issue flu vaccine was administered to Petitioner’s left deltoid on September
10, 2020, at approximately 2:00 p.m. Ex. 2 at 604 – 05; Ex. 3 at 8 – 9. The
vaccination occurred at Kaiser Permanente. Id. Petitioner left work at 3:52 p.m.
(approximately two hours earlier than scheduled). Ex. 9 at 3.
• More than a month later, on October 19, 2020, Petitioner obtained a “self-
request… same-day” bilateral mammogram screening. The record does not
address the presence or absence of left shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 12 – 13. And there
are no intervening medical records between this occurrence and the vaccination
date.
4 A perfusionist is a medical professional who operates a heart-lung machine that “artificially replaces a
patient’s heart or lung functions during surgery.” UT Health Houston – McGovern Medical School
Cardiovascular Perfusion Program, What is a Perfusionist?, https://med.uth.edu/perfusion/about-us/what-
is-a-
perfusionist/#:~:text=Perfusionists%20are%20vital%20members%20of,or%20lung%20functions%20durin
g%20surgery. (last visited Nov. 7, 2024), cited in Response at n. 2.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 6 of 9
• The next record is from four months and eleven (11) days post-vaccination, on
January 21, 2021, when Petitioner underwent an MRI of the left shoulder at a
Kaiser Permanente facility. Ex. 6 at 18. The MRI was ordered by a Kaiser
Permanente orthopedist, Nima Mehran, M.D., without any preceding evaluation or
recorded communication with Petitioner. Id.5 The MRI report’s clinical history
section reads: “Left sh pain. Evaluate cuff and cartialge [sic]. Possible adhesive
capsulitis as well.” Id. at 19. The findings included adhesive capsulitis, a possible
labral tear, minimal fluid in the subacromial/ subdeltoid bursa, and minimal
degenerative arthrosis in the acromioclavicular joint. Id.
• During a February 3, 2021, telephone appointment (lasting a total of 13 minutes),
the orthopedist did not record any history of present illness (“HPI”) from Petitioner
– apart from her apparent use of Gabapentin 100 mg tablets.6 Ex. 2 at 612 – 13.
And the telephone encounter obviously did not involve any visual observation or
physical examination. Id. The orthopedist “discussed MRI results and frozen
shoulder. Reviewed pathology and natural history with both [Petitioner] and her
husband who is a cardiothoracic surgeon at LAMC… She will try to work on
exercises we discussed and work with physical therapy [“PT”]. If pain gets worse,
she will reach out for a CSI. At which point I will ref[er] to [Kaiser Permanente
sports medicine specialist Michael Kaho Fong, M.D.] for US injection.” Id.at 612.
Approximately thirty (30) minutes after that telephone call, Petitioner confirmed that
she did want to schedule the steroid injection. Id. at 619.
• At their February 9, 2021 encounter, the sports medicine specialist recorded
Petitioner’s chief complaint as: “Left shoulder pain[.] Insidious onset[.] ? After
influenza vaccine[.] Decreasing ROM [range of motion] of left shoulder[.]” Ex. 2 at
624. A physical exam confirmed decreased ROM, the assessment remained
adhesive capsulitis, and a corticosteroid injection was administered to the left
glenohumeral joint. Id. at 625. The physician also offered home exercises, echoed
the referral to formal PT, and cautioned that Petitioner “may require 1 year of
aggressive PT to gain full ROM.” Id
5 Certified medical records dating from three years prior to vaccination do not reflect any prior treatment
with the orthopedist. See generally Exs. 2, 4, 6; see also Ex. 10 at ¶ 1 (Petitioner’s confirmation of no prior
treatment); id. at ¶ 3 (explaining that in early 2021, she called Dr. Mehran, who decided “from [Petitioner’s]
description of [her] shoulder, and with the difficulties of getting an appointment, that he would just order the
MRI and we would talk about it after he got the results”).
6 The gabapentin was apparently prescribed for an acute unrelated medical issue over a year earlier, see
Ex. 2 at 424, but the subsequent reference suggests that Petitioner may have taken the leftover tablets to
help manage her shoulder pain prior to seeking formal medical treatment for that concern.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 7 of 9
• During a February 16, 2021, telehealth video consult, a physical therapist
recorded that Petitioner had experienced “pain left shoulder since 9/2020, ROM
decreased… began as a result of the flu shot.” Ex. 2 at 651. The pain rated 0/10
at rest and 5/10 with activity. Id. The therapist recorded objective findings of
reduced ROM, an assessment of frozen shoulder, and recommendations of a
home exercise program, ice, heat, and rest. Id. at 652. Petitioner was instructed to
follow up as needed – but after six weeks of no follow up, she was administratively
discharged from PT. Id. at 649.
• Next, at a June 4, 2021, initial evaluation with a different physical therapist (still
within Kaiser Permanente), Petitioner reported that her left shoulder pain onset
was in September 2020, beginning “after getting the flu shot.” Ex. 4 at 39. She
attended a total of four formal PT sessions, which included instruction on home
exercises. Id. at 39 – 41, 57 – 59, 90 – 91, 116 – 18. At the last session on July
27, 2021, Petitioner reported that her ROM had “improved significantly” and her
pain rating was 0/10. Id. at 116. She opted to discontinue formal PT, and the
therapist concurred that she would likely achieve all remaining goals with a HEP.
Id. at 117. There are no other relevant medical records.
• Petitioner recalls that her September 10, 2020, vaccination was “extremely
painful.” Ex. 8 at ¶ 2. Afterwards, she experienced ongoing left shoulder pain,
complained to coworkers, had difficulty resuming her work duties, and received
her supervisor’s approval to leave more than three years before the end of her
shift. Id.; see also Ex. 9 at 3 (time sheet corroborating this allegation). Over the
following weeks her shoulder pain persisted, and her ROM began to decrease, but
she had difficulty obtaining a primary care evaluation due to the COVID Pandemic.
Ex. 8 at ¶ 3. Eventually she called the aforementioned orthopedist, who facilitated
an MRI and telehealth consult. Id. at ¶ 4; see also Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 2 – 5 (maintaining
that her shoulder pain began “immediately” upon vaccination, but she “thought
[she] was being a team player by neglecting [her] own medical care for people with
truly emergent medical issues” during the Pandemic).
• Petitioner’s husband has confirmed that she “told [him] on the evening of
September 10, 2020, that her flu shot administration was very painful and that she
continued to have pain.” Ex. 9 at 1.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 8 of 9
• Similarly, a coworker recalls that “[a]fter her flu shot, [Petitioner] was complaining
that her flu shot was painful, and her arm hurt. She left early that day. Her shift
ended at 7 pm and her timecard shows she left at 3:52 pm.” Ex. 9 at 2.7
The only issue in dispute is whether or not Petitioner’s left shoulder pain began
within forty-eight (48) hours post-vaccination, as required for a Table SIRVA claim. 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)(ii). Respondent argues that the injury’s onset is unknown –
based on the absence of any objective medical records documenting a left shoulder injury
for over four months post-vaccination. Response at 7 – 8. But the Act explicitly rules out
obligating petitioners to prove onset based on evidence created close-in-time to the
alleged onset. Section 13(b)(2) (permitting a finding of onset within the Table timeframe,
even if “the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was
incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such period”).
The subsequent records are somewhat lacking in detail, or vague, about when the
shoulder injury began. But Petitioner has explained that the medical evaluations obtained
were somewhat informal (from colleagues within her health system or her own physician
husband). And special masters reasonably understand terms like “since” or “after” to
mean very close in time – and hence are commonly construed to mean occurring within
48 hours after the referenced inciting event.8 Respondent otherwise has not pointed to
any evidence suggesting that Petitioner’s left shoulder was symptom-free during the initial
treatment delay, or that it was injured at some other point beyond 48 hours post-
vaccination.
Respondent further notes that notwithstanding the Pandemic, Petitioner had
options for accessing medical care – including telemedicine. Response at 7 – 8. But
Petitioner has credibly explained that her shoulder injury progressed over time – and she
had previously consulted her physician husband before seeking formal treatment for other
medical concerns (e.g., a skin abnormality that proved to be cancerous). Petitioner’s
conduct is less relevant to the fact of onset, and instead more relevant to an assessment
of the degree of her pain and suffering during the same time period (and certainly a case
featuring limited treatment and long treatment gaps will not result in a significant pain and
suffering award).
7 Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s husband and coworker offered unsworn statements. Response
at 4. But both are “signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.” See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 (providing that
such a declaration may be afforded like force and effect as a notarized affidavit). I thus consider them to
have some evidentiary trustworthiness, even if they do not precisely fit the requirements of a federal
declaration.
8 Petitioner’s Reply at 2 – 3 and n. 6 cites numerous such cases.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/17/24 Page 9 of 9
Moreover, Petitioner’s onset allegation is corroborated by a timecard reflecting her
early departure from work (after receiving the vaccination at her place of employment),
as well as by her husband and coworker’s firsthand observations. The coworker’s
declaration is particularly relevant, given that he has no apparent “interest in the outcome”
of this litigation. Compare Response at 10, citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 90-2808V, 1998 WL 408611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998) (concerning
the recollections of parents pursuing a claim on behalf of their child).
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish that onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement, see Response at
n. 6 (confirming that he “solely contests the QAI requirement of onset”), and based on my
independent review, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly established all other
requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Accordingly, she
need not prove causation-in-fact. Section 11(c)(1)(C). I also find that Petitioner has
satisfied all other requirements of Section 11(c) including a sufficiently severe injury, and
the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a SIRVA following her September 10, 2020,
flu vaccine. Therefore, the case is now formally in the damages phase.
By no later than Thursday, December 12, 2024, Petitioner shall file a Status
Report updating on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 In November 2022, Petitioner reported that the claim did not involve a Medicaid lien or ongoing treatment,
and she conveyed a pain and suffering demand to Respondent. See Status Reports (ECF Nos. 22, 24).
The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions from June 2023 – March 2024. Thus, it is
expected that the parties can promptly determine whether damages can be informally resolved, and if not,
jointly propose a reasonable schedule for briefing their respective positions as to the appropriate award for
Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00113-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-22
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/20/2024) regarding 49 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/22/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-113V
SUZANNE KALLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 20, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 3, 2022, Suzanne Kallin 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”) vaccination administered to her
on September 10, 2020. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months,
and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of
an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, on May 14, 2024, arguing that this matter
was not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 37. Following briefing, a Ruling on
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 (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/22/25 Page 2 of 5
Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF
Nos. 42-45.
On December 20, 2024, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation
(“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $30,000.00 in pain and suffering.
Proffer at 2, ECF No. 48. In the Proffer, 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 $30,000.00 in 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 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/22/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
SUZANNE KALLIN, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 22-113V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 3, 2022, Suzanne Kallin (“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 an influenza
vaccine on September 10, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1, 6.
On May 14, 2024, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report, maintaining that this
case is not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act. ECF 37. Briefing occurred
thereafter, and, on November 12, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on
Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her SIRVA.1 See
Ruling on Entitlement. ECF Nos. 42-45.
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 November 12, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/22/25 Page 4 of 5
I. Item of Compensation
Pain and Suffering
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$30,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). 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:2 a lump sum payment of $30,000.00 for
pain and suffering in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment
Lump sum payment to petitioner, Suzanne Kallin: $30,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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 1:22-vv-00113-UNJ Document 53 Filed 01/22/25 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Jamica M. Littles
JAMICA M. LITTLES
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) 305-4014
Email: jamica.m.littles@usdoj.gov
DATED: December 20, 2024
3