VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00301
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00301
Petitioner: Jennifer Callies
Filed: 2022-03-18
Decided: 2025-05-15
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-12-01
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 40785

AI-assisted case summary:
Jennifer Callies filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 18, 2022. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccination on December 1, 2020, and that the residual effects of this injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent initially stated that the case was not appropriate for compensation. However, on February 24, 2025, the respondent filed an amended report conceding that Ms. Callies was entitled to compensation, as she had satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on February 25, 2025, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, finding Ms. Callies entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 14, 2025, the respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, indicating that Ms. Callies should be awarded $40,000.00 for pain and suffering and $785.32 to satisfy a Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien. The proffer stated that Ms. Callies agreed with this proposed award. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on May 15, 2025, awarding Ms. Callies a total of $40,785.32. This amount included a lump sum payment of $40,000.00 for pain and suffering, to be paid through an ACH deposit to her counsel's IOLTA account, and a lump sum payment of $785.32 to satisfy the Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien, payable jointly to Ms. Callies and the Office of the Attorney General. The decision noted that this award represented compensation for all damages available under the Act. Petitioner's counsel was Jubaile Abila of Groth Law Firm, S.C., and respondent's counsel was Lauren Kells of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Jennifer Callies filed a petition alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on December 1, 2020. The petition alleged residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent initially contested compensation but later conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner satisfied the criteria in the Vaccine Injury Table. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on February 25, 2025, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, finding entitlement. A subsequent Decision Awarding Damages on May 15, 2025, awarded Petitioner $40,000.00 for pain and suffering and $785.32 to satisfy a Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien, totaling $40,785.32. The public text does not detail the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or clinical findings beyond the diagnosis of SIRVA and the onset of symptoms within 48 hours of vaccination, which satisfied the Table injury criteria. Petitioner was represented by Jubaile Abila, and Respondent by Lauren Kells.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00301-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/19/2024) regarding 43 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-301V
JENNIFER CALLIES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 19, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FACT RULING ON ONSET1
On March 18, 2022, Jennifer Callies filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on
December 1, 2020. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than not that the onset of
Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, as alleged.
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-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
After initiating her claim, Petitioner filed an affidavit, medical records, and a vaccine
administration record, followed by a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 6-7. While this
matter awaited Respondent’s medical review, Petitioner was ordered to submit additional
evidence in support of her claim that onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF
No. 15. Petitioner thereafter filed a supplemental affidavit, plus additional medical records
during the summer of 2023. ECF Nos. 17, 31. The parties attempted to informally resolve
this matter but were unsuccessful. ECF Nos. 34-38, 40.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on June 21, 2024, arguing that Petitioner
had failed to show a Table injury because her medical records did not support the
conclusion that the onset of her pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
Respondent’s Report at 5, ECF No. 41. Specifically, Respondent noted that Petitioner
returned to the provider that administered the subject vaccine one day later (on December
2, 2020) but did not mention shoulder complaints. Id. (citing Ex. 2 at 6-7). More so,
Respondent took issue with Petitioner’s failure to seek shoulder-related treatment for
nearly three months post vaccination, and contended that any complaints of her pain
beginning soon after vaccination made during her first treatment visit are inconsistent with
her lack of reports just one day post vaccination. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2 at 5). The onset
dispute is now ripe for consideration.
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). “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.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 3 of 7
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)).
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 § 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).
III. Relevant Factual Evidence
I make this finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed, and in particular the following:3
• Petitioner received the subject vaccination on December 1, 2020, during a
visit with her primary care provider (“PCP”) for unrelated conditions. Ex. 2
at 8-9. She attested that she felt pain “immediately” after receiving the
vaccine, “which got progressively worse as time progressed.” Ex. 1 ¶ 3; Ex.
3 While I have reviewed all the evidence filed to-date in this case, only evidence related to onset will be
discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 4 of 7
7 ¶ 4. That night, she “had a dull pain and felt sore at [her] left shoulder,”
requiring her to use a heating pad and over-the-counter medications. Ex. 1
¶ 3. She attested that her pain persisted through the next day, and she was
then unable to lift her left arm due to pain and decreased range of motion
(“ROM”). Id. ¶ 4; Ex. 7 ¶¶ 6-8.
• Petitioner’s roommate has authored an affidavit on her behalf attesting that
Petitioner complained to him of pain and soreness and an inability to lift her
left arm on the day of her December 1, 2020 vaccine. Ex. 5 ¶ 5.
• The day after vaccination, on December 2, 2020, Petitioner returned to her
PCP to follow up regarding some unrelated conditions. Ex. 2 at 6-9. She did
not mention left shoulder complaints during this visit. See id. Petitioner has,
however, attempted to explain why she failed to disclose left shoulder
ailments on this date, stating that she “incorrectly believed that [her] left
shoulder pain was a normal side-effect of receiving a flu shot, given [her]
history of pain, soreness, and stiffness from flu shots, as well as the warning
given . . . at the time of the shot.” Ex. 7 ¶¶ 5, 10. She thought her pain “would
go away.” Ex. 1 ¶ 5.
• There is a subsequent gap of more than two months in the treatment record,
and Petitioner has attempted to explained why she did not seek care during
this time (despite the existence of pain and limited ROM). Ex. 1 ¶ 5. She
noted that she has a four-year-old daughter, plus she experienced
difficulties with “medical scheduling during the COVID pandemic.” Id.
Additionally, Petitioner reiterated that she believed the symptoms were
normal and would go away. Id.; Ex. 7 ¶¶ 11-12.
• 83 days post vaccination, on February 23, 2021, Petitioner returned to her
PCP reporting that “[s]ince she had a flu shot in her left deltoid, [she] has
been having pain there, mostly with movement.” Ex. 2 at 5. She also was
unable to fully extend her arm. Id. Following a physical examination showing
tenderness and limited ROM, she was assessed with left shoulder pain and
referred to an orthopedist. Id.
• On May 4, 2021, Petitioner saw an orthopedist stating that “[b]ack in
January 2021, she got a flu shot in her left shoulder and . . . since then she
has had difficulty sleeping on the left shoulder and increasing pain.” Ex. 3
at 11. In her affidavit, Petitioner addressed the incorrect date ascribed to
her flu vaccine during this visit. Ex. 1 ¶ 7. She explained that she “was
4

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 5 of 7
unsure of the exact date of the flu shot, and erroneously stated that it was
administered around January 1, 2021, rather than the actual date of
December 1, 202[0].” Id.
• No other medical record or affidavit evidence regarding the onset of
Petitioner’s post vaccination shoulder injury has been filed.
IV. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset
A petitioner alleging a SIRVA claim must show that she experienced the first
symptom or onset within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)), and that
her pain began within that same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI
criteria)). As stated above, Respondent contends that Petitioner’s medical records do not
support that the onset of her pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent’s
Report at 5. Petitioner attended an intervening medical visit just one day post vaccination
and did not report shoulder pain; she then waited for nearly three months before seeking
care. Id. at 5-6. She thus is relying on affidavits alone to support her argument as to onset
and such affidavits are inconsistent with the contemporaneous medical records. See id.
These objections are ultimately unpersuasive, however, when considered in light
of the totality of the evidence. The aforementioned medical records, coupled with
Petitioner’s affidavits, establish that Petitioner consistently reported to treaters onset
close-in-time to vaccination, that she sought treatment within three months of the
December 1, 2020 vaccination, and that she indeed was experiencing symptoms in the
relevant timeframe. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 5; Ex. 3 at 11; Ex. 1; Ex. 7.
The fact that Petitioner did not seek treatment for nearly three months post
vaccination (on February 23, 2021) does not preclude a finding of Table onset. In other
cases, even greater delays did not undermine an otherwise-preponderantly-established
onset showing consistent with the Table. See, e.g., Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018), mot.
for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019) (finding a 48-hour onset of shoulder pain despite
a nearly six-month delay in seeking treatment); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-830V, 2019 WL 1040410, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting a delay
in seeking treatment for five-and-a-half months because a petitioner underestimated the
severity of her shoulder injury). Delay in seeking treatment does bear on the overall
severity of the injury but is not per se evidence of a non-conforming onset.
Likewise, the fact that Petitioner sought care with her PCP one day post
vaccination (on December 2, 2020) without mentioning left shoulder pain does not detract
5

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 6 of 7
from her arguments on onset, as it is common SIRVA petitioners will put off seeking
shoulder-related care, believing the pain is normal and will resolve on its own over time,
especially since patients are often told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to
expect some soreness and pain for a period of time after. This appears to have been the
case here, with Petitioner explaining she thought her pain left over from the vaccination
was normal and would resolve on its own. See, e.g., Ex. 1 ¶ 5; Ex. 7 ¶ 10. I will note,
however, Petitioner’s ability to seek care for non-shoulder related issues one day after
the receipt of her vaccination is somewhat inconsistent with her affidavit, wherein she
describes immediate and ongoing shoulder pain by this time. Ex. 1 ¶ 3. This evidence is
thus further supportive of the conclusion that Petitioner’s SIRVA was very mild.
In addition, although the filed medical record is limited in this case (including only
two entries bearing on onset), Petitioner affirmatively and repeatedly linked her shoulder
pain to the flu vaccine – beginning with the February 23rd treatment encounter, at which
time she noted that her shoulder pain had been present “since she had a flu shot in her
left deltoid.” Ex. 2 at 5. This reporting provides further support for Table onset. One other
subsequent medical record also corroborates the contention made in Petitioner’s
affidavits that her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Ex. 3 at 11 (a May 4, 2021
note that she has had pain since receiving the vaccination in January 2021).
Although one of Petitioner’s records does suggest an onset attributable to a
vaccination she received in “January 2021” (rather than December 2020), I do not find
this is enough to preponderate against a favorable onset finding. In fact, even though
Petitioner reported pain dating back to a vaccine she received in January 2021, Petitioner
still related her pain as beginning after her receipt of the vaccine in question. Ex. 3 at 11.
More so, Petitioner offered a credible explanation for this reported error: that she did not
remember the precise date. Ex. 1 ¶ 7. This record therefore provides additional support
for Petitioner’s claims regarding Table onset.
Conclusion
Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that the onset of her shoulder pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
I encourage the parties to make a final attempt at settlement. Respondent shall
file, by no later than Tuesday, January 21, 2025, a status report concerning how he
intends to proceed, including, if appropriate, whether he would like to file an amended
Rule 4(c) report or whether he is otherwise willing to entertain a renewed settlement
demand from Petitioner.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 45 Filed 02/13/25 Page 7 of 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00301-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/25/2025) regarding 48 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/03/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-301V
JENNIFER CALLIES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 25, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 18, 2022, Jennifer Callies (“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 1, 2020. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 21, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report stating that this case is not
appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 41. In response, on December 19, 2024, I issued
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-00301-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/03/25 Page 2 of 2
a fact ruling finding that the onset of Petitioner’s injury was within 48 hours of the subject
vaccination, as alleged. ECF No. 43.
On February 24, 2025, 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. 47. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner has
otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under
the Act.” Id. at 6.
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-00301-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-15
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/14/2025) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-301V
JENNIFER CALLIES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 14, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 18, 2022, Jennifer Callies 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 an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
administered to her on December 1, 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.
On February 25, 2025, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 48. On April 14, 2025, Respondent filed
a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
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-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 2 of 6
$40,000.00 in pain and suffering and $785.32 to satisfy a Commonwealth of Virginia
Medicaid Lien. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 52. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See 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. A lump sum payment of $40,000.00 for pain and suffering to be paid through
an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner; and
B. A lump sum payment of $785.32, representing compensation for satisfaction
of the Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien, payable jointly to Petitioner
and to:
Office of the Attorney General
Financial Recovery Section
ATTN: Valerie Hill, OAG File #202303366
P.O. Box 610
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the Office of the Attorney
General.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a). See id.
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-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 3 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
JENNIFER CALLIES, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 22-301V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On March 18, 2022, Jennifer Callies (“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 December 1, 2020. Petition at 1, 6. On December 19, 2024, the Court issued
Findings of Fact, ruling that the onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination. ECF No. 43. On February 24, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief
Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact, and the medical evidence submitted in this case,
respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Vaccine Act. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 5 (ECF No. 47). The next day, Chief

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 4 of 6
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 No. 48).
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$40,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Medicaid Lien
Respondent further proffers that petitioner, Jennifer Callies, should be awarded funds to
satisfy, in full, the Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien in the amount of $785.32, which
represents satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the
Commonwealth of Virginia may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid
payments the Commonwealth of Virginia has made to or on behalf of Jennifer Callies from the
date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her
vaccine-related injury, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
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
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 February 25, 2025, entitlement decision.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 5 of 6
two lump sum payments as described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
damages decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:2
(A) Petitioner’s Damages
A lump sum payment of $40,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.
(B) Medicaid Lien
A lump sum payment of $785.32, representing compensation for satisfaction of
the Commonwealth of Virginia Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and to:
Office of the Attorney General
Financial Recovery Section
Attn: Valerie Hill, OAG File #202303366
P.O. Box 610
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the Office of the Attorney General.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments
a. Lump sum payment to petitioner, Jennifer Callies: $40,000.00
b. Lump sum payment payable jointly to petitioner $785.32
and the Office of the Attorney General in
satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Medicaid Lien:
Respectfully submitted,
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
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.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00301-UNJ Document 57 Filed 05/15/25 Page 6 of 6
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Directory
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Lauren Kells
LAUREN KELLS
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Telephone: (202) 616-4187
Email: Lauren.Kells@usdoj.gov
DATED: April 14, 2025
4