VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00207
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00207
Petitioner: Larry Toothman
Filed: 2022-02-24
Decided: 2025-02-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-08-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 72500

AI-assisted case summary:
Larry Toothman filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccination he received on August 17, 2021. He further alleged that the injury caused residual effects for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially requested a fact ruling regarding the vaccine administration site. After a ruling confirmed the vaccine was administered in his right arm, the respondent conceded that Mr. Toothman met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and was entitled to compensation. The case proceeded as a Table claim. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages. The Chief Special Master awarded Larry Toothman a lump sum payment of $72,500.00 for pain and suffering, representing all elements of compensation available under the Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00207-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-24
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/19/2024) regarding 26 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-207V
LARRY TOOTHMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 19, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 24, 2022, Larry Toothman 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received in his right
shoulder on August 17, 2021. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
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-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more
likely than not administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately eleven months after the claim’s initiation, Petitioner submitted his
proof of vaccination (depicting a hand-written, encircled “LA” as the site of vaccination),
plus medical records and an affidavit. ECF No. 12. He filed a statement of completion the
same day. ECF No. 14. On May 15, 2023, Petitioner amended his Petition to include more
factual details. ECF No. 16. This case was then activated and assigned to SPU. ECF No.
18.
In November 2023, Respondent filed a status report stating his opinion that this
case was not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 23. Respondent subsequently filed
his Rule 4(c) report on January 22, 2024. ECF No. 25. Respondent argues that
Petitioner’s vaccination record “clearly documents that he received the flu vaccine in his
left arm, and not his right arm, the site where his subsequent treatment took place.” Id. at
7 (citing Ex. 1 at 2). Respondent otherwise “acknowledges that [P]etitioner sought
treatment twenty-three days later and a physical exam revealed evidence of decreased
right shoulder [range of motion (“ROM”)] and internal rotation.” Id. at 7-8. Thus,
Respondent requests that the Court issue a fact ruling resolving the issue of situs. Id. at
8.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in his right
arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
III. 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
2

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 7
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. 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, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & 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, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (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).
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 & 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).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 7
IV. Finding of Fact
The following finding of fact is based on a complete review of the record, including
the petition, all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
highlight the following:
• Ex. 5 ¶ 1, Petitioner’s affidavit, wherein he refers generally to “the shoulder”
or as “it” – he rarely describes symptomology specific to the right shoulder,
nor does he mention in which arm the vaccine was administered. For
instance, Petitioner states that “when [the nurse] first put the needle in,
[Petitioner] remember[ed] thinking that hurt. [He] couldn’t move [his] arm
and had a bunch of pain in the whole arm.” Id. Petitioner also describes
limitations with activities and stated he is “more left-handed than right-
handed anymore.” Id. ¶ 2. As an example, Petitioner attests that when
pumping gas, “[t]he right arm isn’t strong enough to turn [the knob] one click.
There just isn’t a lot [he] can do with it.” Id. ¶ 3.
• Ex. 2 at 8, a record of Petitioner’s September 9, 2021 visit (23 days post
vaccination) with a primary care physician (“PCP”) to establish care and
address “R arm pain.” Petitioner reported he “got [the] flu vaccine in this arm
on 8/17/21 and has had ain [sic] in [the] arm ever since.” Id. Petitioner also
noted decreased ROM “to [the] right shoulder, weakness to [right upper
extremity] and [numbness/tingling] to the first three fingers on [the] right
hand.” Id. A physical examination confirmed Petitioner’s complaints. Id. at
9. Petitioner was assessed with acute pain of the right shoulder and he was
prescribed prednisone. Id. Petitioner was also referred to an orthopedic
surgeon with the reason listed as “decreased ROM; injection from flu shot
in wrong area[,] pain for over a month now with radiation down arm.” Id.
• Ex. 2 at 5, a record from Petitioner’s follow-up appointment with his PCP on
September 20, 2021, noting “right arm pain after flu shot [i]nsertion[,] weeks
later . . . still having pain [after] it was inserted in incorrect location.”
Petitioner reported “pain to right shoulder [-] aching and then sharp shooting
at times.” Id. Petitioner was ordered to undergo imaging of the right
shoulder. Id. at 6.
• Ex. 2 at 20, an x-ray of Petitioner’s right shoulder showing minimal
arthropathy of the acromioclavicular joint, with minimal degenerative type
changes.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 7
• Ex. 2 at 18, an October 4, 2021 note from a visit to an orthopedic surgeon,
during which Petitioner reported “a lot of problems with his right shoulder”
since his flu vaccine. Following a physical examination, Petitioner was
assessed with an “[i]njection site reaction” and “[i]nternal impingement of
[the] right shoulder.” Id. at 19. Petitioner received a steroid injection in his
right shoulder and was referred to physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
• Ex. 3 at 182, a record of Petitioner’s October 6, 2021 initial PT evaluation
noting Petitioner presented with “R shoulder pain secondary to onset after
flu vaccine given on 8/17/21.” Upon a physical examination revealing
diminished ROM and strength in the right shoulder, additional PT was
recommended to address Petitioner’s right shoulder symptoms. Petitioner
subsequently attended five additional PT sessions for his right shoulder
through November 2021. See id. at 128-226.
• Ex. 2 at 16, a record from Petitioner’s orthopedic follow-up for “right
shoulder impingement” on November 17, 2021. A physical examination
showed that Petitioner’s “shoulder motion is not fluid on the right side.” Id.
Petitioner was assessed with internal impingement of the right shoulder and
a nontraumatic complete tear of the right rotator cuff. Id. An MRI of the right
shoulder was recommended. Id. at 17.
• Ex. 2 at 22, a November 29, 2021 MRI of Petitioner’s right shoulder. The
reason for the MRI was listed as “[p]ain with limited [ROM] and right hand
numbness post flu shot in right upper top shoulder area.”
• Ex. 2 at 14, a record from Petitioner’s December 8, 2021 follow-up with his
orthopedic surgeon noting that his right shoulder pain had increased since
his last visit. The orthopedic surgeon’s assessment of Petitioner’s right
shoulder remained unchanged following a physical examination. Id.
• Ex. 3 at 101, a record from Petitioner’s second initial PT evaluation on
January 5, 2022, stating “pain in R shoulder” that “began following [a] flu
vaccine in August 2021.” Additional PT was suggested to help manage
Petitioner’s right shoulder complaints. Id. at 104. Petitioner completed
seven additional sessions through February 2022, with the focus on his right
shoulder. Id. at 37-76.
• Ex. 6 at 1, an October 3, 2022 orthopedic follow-up note showing Petitioner
received a second steroid shot in his right shoulder due to ongoing pain in
said shoulder. Id. at 1-2.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 7
The above evidence preponderantly supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s
August 17, 2021 flu vaccine was likely administered in his right shoulder, as alleged. The
record of Petitioner’s September 9, 2021 PCP visit for right shoulder pain present ever
since receiving a flu shot in his right arm (Ex. 2 at 8), is particularly persuasive. This record
is from only approximately 23 days post vaccination and is the most contemporaneous
record other than the vaccine administration record itself. And as the above-referenced
medical records further establish, when seeking medical treatment on every occasion
thereafter, Petitioner consistently reported right shoulder pain attributable to his flu
vaccination.
It is true that the vaccine administration record itself memorializes the site of the
administration of Petitioner’s flu vaccine as the left arm – with a handwritten circle of the
notation “LA.” Ex. 1 at 2. While I routinely afford more weight to a handwritten vaccination
record,3 based upon my experience resolving SPU SIRVA cases and comparable
matters, it is also not unusual for the information regarding situs of vaccination set forth
in this kind of document to be incorrect.4 In many instances, the information regarding
situs has been recorded prior to vaccination and is not subsequently corrected, even if
the vaccine is then administered in the opposing arm.5 Thus, although such records are
unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing on the issue of site, and merit
some weight as a result, they are not per se reliable simply because they come first. In
fact, I have previously determined that the very nature of vaccination record creation
provides some basis for not accepting them as the evidence worthy of highest probative
weight. See, e.g., Rizvi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-881V, 2022 WL
2284311, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2022).
The vaccine administration record at issue here is a handwritten entry on an
otherwise haphazardly-completed form. See Ex. 1 at 2 (containing entries listed
3 Rizvi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-881V, 2022 WL 2284311, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
13, 2022); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020).
4 See, e.g., Arnold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1038V 2021 WL 2908519, at *4 (Fed. CL.
Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2021); Syed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1364V, 2021 WL 2229829, at
*4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2021); Ruddy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 19-1998V, 2021 WL
1291777, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-0811V,
2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018).
5 In a recent ruling by another special master, the pharmacist who had administered the relevant vaccination
actually testified that she inputs “left deltoid” into the computer system as a matter of course, without
confirming the actual site of vaccination, based upon the assumption that most vaccinees are right-handed.
Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 19, 2021).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 7
diagonally and not in the allotted spaces). It is the only evidence in this case that
contradicts Petitioner’s assertions regarding situs and supports a finding of left arm situs.
When weighed against Petitioner’s clear, consistent, and close-in-time reports of right
shoulder pain following his receipt of a flu vaccine in that arm, his diagnostic testing, and
his exclusive treatment for right shoulder symptoms, it does not defeat a finding that
Petitioner received his August 17, 2021 flu vaccine in his right arm, as alleged. To rule
otherwise, the overall record would need to contain more instances in which the counter
situs was suggested or supported.
V. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, May 10, 2024, a status report
concerning how he intends to proceed, including, if appropriate, whether he would like to
file an amended Rule 4(c) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00207-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/13/2024) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-207V
LARRY TOOTHMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 13, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 24, 2022, Larry Toothman (“Petitioner”) 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 he suffered from a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on August 17, 2021. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges
that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Id. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 22, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report stating that this case is
not appropriate for compensation and requesting a fact ruling regarding the site of vaccine
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-00207-UNJ Document 32 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 2
administration. ECF No. 25. In response, on April 19, 2024, I issued a fact ruling finding
that Petitioner received the subject flu vaccination in his right arm, as alleged. ECF No.
26.
On June 12, 2024, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 2, ECF No. 29. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner has met the
criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 7. Respondent does not
dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
Act.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and 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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00207-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-10
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/10/2025) regarding 39 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/10/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-207V
LARRY TOOTHMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 10, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 24, 2022, Larry Toothman 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to him
on August 17, 2021. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
received in the United States, he suffered sequela of his 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 his vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/10/25 Page 2 of 5
Following the filing of Respondent’s amended Rule 4(c) report, on June 12, 2024,
a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his
SIRVA. ECF Nos. 29-30.
On January 10, 2025, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation
(“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $72,500.00 in pain and suffering.
Proffer at 2, ECF No. 38. 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 $72,500.00 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-00207-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/10/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LARRY TOOTHMAN,
Petitioner, No. 22-207V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 24, 2022, Larry Toothman (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended (the
“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34.1 Petitioner alleges that he received a seasonal
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on August 17, 2021, and thereafter suffered from a right shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1.
On July 12, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an
amended Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of
Fact ruling that the flu vaccine was administered in petitioner’s right shoulder, respondent did
not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
1 Petitioner filed an amended petition on May 15, 2023, with a more detailed recitation of the
facts and citations to his medical records. ECF No. 16. The amended petition did not alter
petitioner’s claim.

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/10/25 Page 4 of 5
Vaccine Act. ECF No. 29. On June 13, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on
Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.2 ECF No. 30.
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $72,500.00 in pain and suffering.
The amount represents 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 as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following3: a lump sum payment of $72,500.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Larry Toothman: $72,500.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 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 June 13, 2024 Ruling on Entitlement.
3 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,
unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00207-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/10/25 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/CAMILLE J. WEBSTER
CAMILLE J. WEBSTER
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Direct dial: (202) 307-3241
Email: Camille.Webster@usdoj.gov
Dated: January 10, 2025
3