VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00235
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00235
Petitioner: Maise Johnson
Filed: 2022-03-02
Decided: 2024-03-18
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-12-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 43000

AI-assisted case summary:
Maise Johnson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on December 13, 2020, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). She further alleged that the effects of her injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. The respondent's Rule 4(c) report indicated that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on February 5, 2024, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on March 18, 2024, a Decision Awarding Damages was issued. The parties submitted a Proffer on Award of Compensation, agreeing that Petitioner should be awarded $43,000.00 for pain and suffering. This amount represents all elements of compensation available under the Act. The award was made as a lump sum payment.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00235-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-30
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/30/2023) regarding 25 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-235V
MAISE JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 30, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On March 2, 2022, Maise Johnson 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”) vaccine she received in her left
shoulder on December 13, 2020. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
The specific vaccine administration record does not support Petitioner’s contention
that she received the subject flu vaccine in her left shoulder as alleged. Ex. 1 at 3.
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-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 6
Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, and based on the totality of the record
evidence relevant to the topic, I find the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more likely than
not administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with her petition, Petitioner filed her vaccination record, medical records, and
a witness declaration, followed by a statement of completion on March 4, 2022. ECF Nos.
1, 7. On December 1, 2022, Respondent filed a status report with his informal assessment
of the claim. ECF No. 14. Respondent did not describe issues that would preclude this
case from staying in SPU. Id. at 2.
On June 7, 2023, while this case awaited medical review, Petitioner filed an
additional witness declaration in support of site of vaccination. ECF No. 19. Petitioner
then confirmed that, based on the submitted evidence and existing caselaw regarding
situs, she would not be filing additional evidence on that issue. Informal Comm., docketed
June 16, 2023. On July 7, 2023, following a medical review of this case, Respondent
submitted a status report requesting to file a Rule 4(c) Report and inviting a demand from
Petitioner. ECF No. 21.
Petitioner submitted a settlement demand to Respondent on August 28, 2023. ECF
No. 23. The same day, rather than filing his Rule 4(c) Report as requested, Respondent
filed a status report stating that he “is amenable to informal resolution” of this case and
asking to suspend the Rule 4(c) deadline until the parties have had a chance to explore
settlement discussions. ECF No. 24. As support, Respondent noted that no formal fact
finding on situs had been made at that time. See Informal Comm., docketed Oct. 4, 2023.
I have determined that a factual ruling regarding the site of vaccination is required
and will assist in the case’s ultimate disposition. Thus, the issue of the site of Petitioner’s
December 13, 2020 flu vaccination is now ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her left
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
2

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 6
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. 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
3

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 4 of 6
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).
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/witness declarations, and additional evidence
filed. Specifically, I highlight the following:
• Ex. 1 at 3 - Petitioner’s vaccination record, noting she received a flu vaccine
on December 13, 2020, in her right deltoid. The notation is an automated,
computer-generated entry.
• Ex. 5 ¶ 3 - Petitioner’s witness declaration, attesting that her vaccination
record is “incorrect.” She recalls that she received her vaccination “in the
cube in the pharmacy. [Her] back was to the east and there was a small tray
table to the south.” Id. ¶ 4. She continues, “[t]he provider stood in front of
[her] and asked which arm for the vaccine. [She] shifted [her] body and give
[the administrator her] left shoulder, and that’s where [the administrator]
gave [her] the vaccine.” Id. ¶ 5.
• Ex. 2 at 106-08 - a record of Petitioner’s December 14, 2020 visit to her
primary care provider (“PCP”), at which time she complained of sharp “pain
in the left shoulder blade.” An x-ray of her left shoulder was ordered. Id. This
visit occurred a day after vaccination.
• Ex. 3 at 9-11 - a February 4, 2021 record from Petitioner’s PCP, noting that
she complained of “pain in her left arm that started after the flu shot in
December [2020].” Her pain “radiates from her left shoulder to her upper
back and right shoulder. She now has issues with ROM in the left shoulder.”
She was at this time assessed with pain in the left shoulder.
• Ex. 4 at 8-9 - an orthopedic record from February 25, 2021, evaluating
Petitioner’s “left shoulder pain.” It states that Petitioner “got a flu vaccine
[and] started developing pain in the lateral brachium of the left shoulder the
next day.” She was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis with impingement
of the left shoulder.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 5 of 6
• Ex. 4 at 16-22 - a March 15, 2021 initial physical therapy (“PT”) record for
treatment of left shoulder pain. Petitioner attended 13 total sessions for left
shoulder adhesive capsulitis through July 16, 2021.
• Ex. 7 ¶ 2 - a witness declaration authored by Petitioner’s husband, stating
that he was “sure [Petitioner] got the flu vaccine in her left arm.” He attests
that Petitioner showed him her left arm, “with the bandage[.]” Id. ¶ 4. She
then “started complaining to [him] that she had pain in her left arm and
shoulder . . . . She was unable to put any weight on her left arm, and
shoulder so [he] had to help her in and out of bed.” Id. ¶ 5. He also states
that “[w]henever [he] had to help [Petitioner] put her clothes on, it was
always the left arm first. Id. ¶ 6. She “also had a difficult time putting her car
seat belt on because she was unable to grip it with the left arm to get it
across.” Id.
Based on the above evidence, it appears more likely than not that Petitioner’s
December 13, 2020 flu vaccine was administered in her left shoulder, as alleged. The
record of Petitioner’s December 14, 2020 visit to her PCP reporting complaints of left
shoulder pain (Ex. 2 at 106), is particularly persuasive. This record is from only one day
post-vaccination, and is the second-most contemporaneous record (after the vaccine
administration record itself). Petitioner immediately reported left-side pain. Then, as the
above-referenced medical entries further establish, when seeking medical treatment on
multiple occasions thereafter, Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain (which
she also attributed to her December 2020 vaccination), and she underwent diagnostic
procedures, physical therapy exercises, and treatment of a condition (adhesive capsulitis)
in the left shoulder. And the submitted witness declarations support a finding that the
vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s left arm.
I acknowledge that the vaccine administration record itself memorializes a different
site of the administration of Petitioner’s flu vaccine. Ex. 1 at 3. But the record is an
automated, computer-generated, electronic entry. See id. Based upon my experience
resolving SPU SIRVA cases and comparable matters, I find it is not unusual for the
information regarding situs of vaccination set forth in this kind of document to be
incorrect.3 In many instances, the information regarding situs is recorded prior to
3 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.,
5

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/30/23 Page 6 of 6
vaccination and is not subsequently corrected, even if the vaccine is then administered in
the opposing arm.4 Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated
documents bearing on the issue of site, 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 at face value. 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). More so, I routinely give greater weight to vaccination records that
are handwritten – meaning those that require specific action on the part of the vaccine
administrator, as opposed to those that are automatically generated by a computerized
system. See, e.g., Rizvi, 2022 WL 2284311, at *5; Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020).
The vaccine administration form at issue in this case is an automated entry in a
computerized system. It is the only evidence in this case that contradicts Petitioner’s
assertion and supports a finding of right arm situs. Given the general unreliability of an
automated vaccination record, and when weighed against Petitioner’s clear, consistent,
and close-in-time reports of left shoulder pain following her receipt of a flu vaccine in that
arm, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner received her December 13,
2020 flu vaccine in her left arm.
V. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Wednesday, November 29, 2023, a
status report concerning how he intends to proceed and, if applicable, a proposed
deadline for filing his Rule 4(c) Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
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).
4 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

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00235-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/05/2024 ) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-235V
MAISE JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 5, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 2, 2022, Maise Johnson (“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 she suffered from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
on December 13, 2020. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered
the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. at 2. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 5, 2024, Respondent filed his 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. 32. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as
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-00235-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 2
defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. 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-00235-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-18
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/07/2024) regarding 37 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-235V
MAISE JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 7, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, PA, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 2, 2022, Maise Johnson 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”) vaccine administered to her on
December 13, 2020. Pet. at 1, 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. at 1-2. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 5, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 34. On February 7, 2024, Respondent
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-00235-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 5
filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be
awarded $43,000.00 in pain and suffering. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 36. 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 $43,000.00 for 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-00235-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
___________________________________
)
MAISE JOHNSON, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 22-235V ECF
)
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________)
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1
I. Procedural History
On March 2, 2022, Maise Johnson (“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”), as amended. Petitioner alleges that an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on
December 13, 2020, caused her to suffer a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”). Petition (“Pet.”) at 1. On October 30, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued
Findings of Fact, finding “the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more likely than not
administered in [p]etitioner’s left shoulder.” ECF No. 25 at 2. On February 5, 2024, respondent
filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report, preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s
October 30, 2023, Findings of Fact, and submitting that petitioner otherwise satisfied the criteria
set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”)
for SIRVA. See 42 C.F.R §§ 100.3(a)(XIV) and (c)(10). ECF No. 32. The same day, Chief
1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to
address after the Damages Decision is issued.

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 5
Special Master Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to
compensation for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 34.
II. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
a lump sum of $43,000.00 for past pain and suffering. This amount represents all elements of
compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
III. Form of the Award
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 following: A lump sum payment of $43,000.00 in
the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 Petitioner agrees.
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
JULIA M. COLLISON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award
for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties
reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00235-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 5
s/ Joseph A. Lewis
JOSEPH A. LEWIS
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146,
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
T: (202) 451-7495
E: joseph.a.lewis@usdoj.gov
DATED: February 7, 2024
3