VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00158
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00158
Petitioner: Nanoya Burgan
Filed: 2022-02-15
Decided: 2025-08-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-23
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45021

AI-assisted case summary:
Nanoya Burgan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 23, 2020. She claimed her left shoulder pain began the night of the vaccination. The court found that her pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, satisfying the criteria for a Table SIRVA injury. The decision noted her prior medical history, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and breast cancer treatment, but found no evidence of prior shoulder issues or alternative causes for her symptoms. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing the record was insufficient to prove onset within the requisite period, citing a lack of mention of pain at a PCP appointment fourteen days post-vaccination and a delay in seeking treatment. However, the court weighed the petitioner's consistent reporting of pain onset after the flu shot to medical providers, including an ultrasound performed for arm pain and swelling three weeks post-vaccination, against the respondent's arguments. The court determined that Nanoya Burgan had met all requirements for entitlement to compensation. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued, granting a total of $45,021.32, comprising $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $21.32 for past unreimbursable expenses, based on a proffer agreed upon by both parties.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00158-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-27
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/21/2025) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0158V
NANOYA BURGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 21, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for
Petitioner.
Michael Bliley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 15, 2022, Nanoya Burgan 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, or in the alternative a caused-in-fact
injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 23, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2,
29-30. She further alleges that her “left shoulder pain began the night of October 23,
2020.” Id. at ¶ 9; accord. Ex. 2 at ¶ 5 (Petitioner’s affidavit).
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 (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 2 of 10
The parties dispute Petitioner’s success in establishing the pain onset needed for
a Table SIRVA. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the onset of Petitioner’s left
shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and that she has satisfied the other
requirements of a compensable Table SIRVA injury. Petitioner is thus entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately one month after filing the Petition, Ms. Burgan filed the affidavit and
some of the medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exs. 1-8, filed Mar. 18, 2022,
ECF No. 6; see Section 11(c). Over the subsequent three months, she filed her remaining
medical records. Exs. 10-11, ECF Nos. 10-13. On July 27, 2022, the case was activated
and assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for resolution
of cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 17.
Approximately one year later, Respondent expressed a willingness to engage in
settlement discussions. Status Report, filed July 12, 2023, ECF No. 23. Over the
subsequent six months, the parties attempted to reach an informal resolution. E.g., Status
Report, filed Oct. 18, 2023, ECF No. 29. On January 23, 2024, they informed me they
had reached an impasse. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 32.
On March 7, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation
in this case. ECF No. 33. Emphasizing Petitioner’s failure to mention any left shoulder
pain at a primary provider (“PCP”) appointment fourteen-days post-vaccination or to seek
treatment until 53 days had past, Respondent argues that “the record is insufficient to
preponderantly prove onset of SIRVA symptoms within the requisite period.” Id. at 5. He
insists that Petitioner description of an insidious pain onset after vaccination is vague and
does not equate to pain onset within 48 hours. Id.
II. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (influenza vaccination) (2017); 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
2

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 3 of 10
A. 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).
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.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 4 of 10
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.
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 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).
B. Analysis
I make the onset finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits or declarations, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base the
findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure,
and high cholesterol. Ex. 5 at 1-120; see generally Exs. 10-11. She was
diagnosed with breast cancer in late 2018, and underwent a lumpectomy,
radiation, and medication. Exs. 3, 8 (oncology and hospital records). On
October 23, 2020, Petitioner was determined to be “[f]ully active, able to
carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction.” Ex. 3 at 3.
• At this last oncology appointment on October 23, 2020, Petitioner received
the flu vaccine intramuscularly in her left deltoid. Ex. 3 at 88-89.
• Fourteen days later, on November 6, 2020, Petitioner visited her PCP for a
refill of her medications and lab work. Ex. 5 at 125-37. She was described
as “doing well this visit with no acute complaints.” Id. at 125.
• Although there is no mention of left shoulder pain at her November 6, 2023
PCP visit (id. at 125-34), an ultrasound of Petitioner’s upper left extremity
4

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 5 of 10
was performed on November 13, 2020 (Ex. 4). “Arm pain and swelling” was
provided as the reason for this testing, and the ultrasound was “[n]egative
for sonographic evidence of deep vein thrombosis in the left upper
extremity.” Id.
• From November 11 to December 17, 2021, Petitioner also underwent
additional lab work. Ex. 5 at 138-44, 146-50. It was noted that Petitioner “is
here because we have to do more lab work up due to findings from last
time.” Id. at 138.
• On January 6, 2021, Petitioner returned to her PCP, complaining of “left
shoulder pain [that] started after she received her flu shot back in [O]ct
2020.” Ex. 5 at 151. Describing her pain as radiating down her arm to her
elbow and worst with overhead movements, she denied any numbness,
tingling, or weakness. Id. There was an entry noting that the results of the
November 13th ultrasound were negative. Id. The results of x-rays taken that
day were unremarkable, and Petitioner was referred to an orthopedist. Id.
at 155, 157. She declined anti-inflammatory medication. Id. at 155.
• One month later, on February 9, 2021, Petitioner attended her first
orthopedic appointment for left shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 3. Reporting a
duration of four months, she characterized her pain onset as “insidious,”
stating that it began “after flu shot.” Id. Petitioner described the quality of
her pain as initially sharp, dull, and tingling, and currently dull. Id.
• The orthopedist observed some slight limitations in Petitioner’s range of
motion (“ROM”). Ex. 6 at 4. After reviewing x-rays taken that day, as well as
the results of the previously performed ultrasound, the orthopedist
diagnosed Petitioner with a left rotator cuff injury and tendonitis, referred
her to PT, and administered an ultrasound guided steroid injection. Id. at 5.
• It appears that Petitioner completed her PT intake paperwork on February
18, 2021, but did not begin her treatment until several months later. See Ex.
7 at 20-27. In that paperwork, she stated that her condition began “10 – 20.”
Id. at 20.
• Six weeks later, on March 23, 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist,
complaining of worsening pain, moderate in severity, and “continuous since
onset.” Ex. 6 at 18. Observing that Petitioner “has not started PT” (id.), the
5

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 6 of 10
orthopedist ordered an MRI3 and provided a PT referral to a specific clinic.
Id. at 22; see Ex. 7 at 31 (PT referral).
• At her first PT session on April 15, 2021, Petitioner again attributed her left
shoulder pain to the flu vaccine she had received in October 2020, reporting
that she “ha[d] pain on her shoulder since then.” Ex. 7 at 1. Estimating the
severity of her pain as eight out of ten, Petitioner exhibited moderate
difficulty performing most of the listed tasks. Id. at 3.
• Throughout the remainder of April and May 2021, Petitioner attended seven
more PT sessions. Ex. 7 at 6-19. By her fifth session on May 13, 2021, she
was assessed as “progressing well, . . . benefitting from wet cups during
manual therapy to assist with greater tissue extensibility.” Ex. 7 at 14. She
reported “pain-free ROM after manual therapy with decreased pain through
AROM after.” Id.
• At her last PT session on May 27, 2021, Petitioner “demonstrate[d] increase
ROM to L shoulder into flexion and internal rotation.” Ex. 7 at 19. She was
assessed as requiring further PT. Id.
• At her next orthopedic appointment approximately six weeks later (July 6,
2021), it was noted that Petitioner had stopped going to PT due to her
insurance company’s denial of coverage. Ex. 6 at 32. She reported that
“[s]he does feel better with the home exercise program and the intra-
articular steroid shot.” Id. The orthopedist instructed Petitioner to continue
performing her home exercises and taking anti-inflammatory medication,
adding that a second steroid injection or arthroscopic surgery would be
considered thereafter. Id. at 33.
• In her affidavit, executed on December 27, 2021, Petitioner stated that “[her]
left shoulder pain began the night of October 23. 2021.” Ex. 2 at ¶ 5. She
described “sharp and intense pain in [her] whole left arm, which radiated
down to [her] hand.” Id.
The record as a whole supports Petitioner’s contention of left shoulder pain
beginning the night of vaccination (October 23, 2020). See Petition at 4; Ex. 2 at 5
(affidavit). When seeking treatment from her PCP, orthopedist, and physical therapist,
Petitioner consistently reported that her left shoulder pain after receiving the flu vaccine
in October 2020. Ex. 5 at 151; Ex. 6 at 3; Ex. 7 at 1, 20. While these close-in-time histories
3 It does not appear that Petitioner underwent a left shoulder MRI.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 7 of 10
were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still should be afforded greater
weight than more current representations, as they were uttered contemporaneously with
Petitioner’s injury for the purposes of obtaining medical care. The Federal Circuit has
stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence
. . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis
added). Thus, the Circuit has instructed that information provided by Petitioner to a treater
and contained in a contemporaneous record deserves weight, and should not be
considered subjective merely because it came from a patient, rather than physician.
Regarding Respondent’s arguments about vague references to pain onset, I note
that in many prior cases I have deemed such objections unpersuasive, especially when
the full descriptions provided by a petitioner clearly establish onset within 48 hours. See,
e.g., Merwitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 2022 WL 17820768, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov. 14, 2022). In this case, Petitioner consistently attributed both the onset and
cause of her left shoulder pain to the flu vaccine she received. And there is a dearth of
evidence supporting a later pain onset.
At first glance, it appears that Petitioner delayed seeking treatment until 53-days
post-vaccination, while failing to mention pain at a PCP visit on November 6, 2020, only
fourteen days post-vaccination. But the performance of an ultrasound for left arm pain
and swelling on November 13, 2020 (only three weeks post-vaccination) supports the
inference that these symptoms were likely discussed at the PCP appointment or shortly
thereafter. And, as I have previously stated in numerous decisions and rulings, “it is often
common for a SIRVA petitioner to delay treatment, thinking his/her injury will resolve on
its own.” Bergstrom v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0784V, 2020 WL 8373365,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 4, 2020).
All of the above amounts to preponderant evidence establishing Petitioner likely
suffered left shoulder pain the same day as her vaccination. Petitioner has thus satisfied
the second criterion for a Table SIRVA injury.
III. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, symptoms
duration, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must establish that she
4 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
7

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 8 of 10
suffered an injury meeting the remaining 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 Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“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
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).
8

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 9 of 10
(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).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
B. Analysis
Respondent has stated no further objections to compensation, and I find Petitioner
has otherwise satisfied all criteria for a Table SIRVA injury following receipt of the flu
vaccine. There is no evidence of prior left shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction or
an alternative cause for Petitioner’s symptoms. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv) (first
and fourth QAI criteria). And Petitioner exhibited pain and limitations in ROM solely in her
left, injured shoulder. E.g., Ex. 6 at 4; Ex. 7 at 19 (orthopedic and PT records); see 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (third QAI criterion). As I have determined in this ruling, the
record supports a finding that Petitioner suffered pain within 48 hours of vaccination. See
supra Section II.B.; 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (second QAI criterion).
Additionally, the medical records show that Petitioner suffered the residual effects
of her injury for more than six-months. Ex. 7 at 6 (noting pain at a level of eight out of ten
at Petitioner’s second PT session on April 26, 2021); see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (six-month
severity requirement). And the vaccine record shows Petitioner received the flu vaccine
at her oncology clinic in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Ex. 3 at 88-89; see Section 11(c)(1)(A)
(requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration
within the United States or its territories). Furthermore, there is no evidence that Petitioner
has collected a civil award for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Thus, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
IV. Appropriate Amount of Compensation
Although I have found Petitioner entitled to compensation, I do not expect the
amount awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering to be significant. Petitioner made
good progress during PT sessions in April and May 2021. Ex. 7. At her last orthopedic
appointment on July 6, 2021, she reported continued improvement from her home
exercise program and steroid injection. Ex. 6 at 32.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record as it currently stands that Petitioner
required additional treatment beyond July 2021. For example, it appears she never
received the second steroid injection offered by her orthopedist if her symptoms
9

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/25 Page 10 of 10
continued. Unlike her PT, there is no evidence showing this treatment would not have
been covered by medical insurance.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00158-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/16/2025) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/26/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0158V
NANOYA BURGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 16, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for
Petitioner.
Michael Bliley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 15, 2022, Nanoya Burgan 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, or in the alternative a caused-in-fact
injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 23, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2,
29-30. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On May 21, 2025, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 37. On July 16, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $45,021.32,
representing $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $21.32 for past unreimbursable
expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
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-00158-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/26/25 Page 2 of 5
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 $45,021.32, representing $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$21.32 for actual unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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-00158-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/26/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
NANOYA BURGAN,
Petitioner,
v. No. 23-158V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 15, 2022, Nanoya Burgan (“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 she received on October 23, 2020. Petition at 1. On May 21, 2025, the
Court found petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 39.1
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the 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 special master’s
June 27, 2025, entitlement decision

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/26/25 Page 4 of 5
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $21.32. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 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 of $45,021.32 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.2 This lump sum payment represents all
elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00158-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/26/25 Page 5 of 5
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Michael S. Bliley
MICHAEL S. BLILEY
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-4357
Michael.Bliley@usdoj.gov
Date: July 15, 2025
3