VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00569
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00569
Petitioner: Kathy Frye
Filed: 2022-05-24
Decided: 2025-11-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-02
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 106558.08

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 24, 2022, Kathy Frye filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 2, 2019 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. She was 67 years old at vaccination. During the case, Ms. Frye died on April 2, 2025 of causes unrelated to the vaccine injury, and Sonya F. Smith continued the matter as administrator of her estate.

Respondent disputed entitlement, pointing to a vaccine record that listed the right arm and arguing that the public medical record did not prove the required severity. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the left-arm situs supported by medical records and a spouse statement describing the bandage location. He also found limited range of motion from the November 20, 2019 orthopedic examination, which recorded reduced forward flexion and abduction with stiffness and pain, and from the December 10, 2019 physical therapy plan to restore active range of motion.

On October 9, 2025, the Chief Special Master found that Ms. Frye had established a Table SIRVA. On November 7, 2025, he awarded $106,558.08: $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $1,558.08 for past unreimbursed expenses. The award was payable by ACH deposit to counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Sonya Frye Smith as estate representative. Ms. Frye was represented by Chellis Garcia of Maglio Christopher & Toale.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine October 2, 2019 at age 67 causing left SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent disputed vaccine situs and Table severity; CSM Corcoran credited left-arm evidence from medical records and spouse statement, and limited ROM evidence from November 20, 2019 orthopedics and December 10, 2019 PT. Entitlement granted October 9, 2025; damages November 7, 2025. Award $106,558.08 ($105,000 pain/suffering + $1,558.08 expenses) to estate representative Sonya Frye Smith because Ms. Frye died April 2, 2025 from unrelated causes. Attorney Chellis Garcia.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00569-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-12
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/09/2025 ) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 8
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-569V
UNPUBLISHED
Sonya F. Smith, as Administrator Chief Special Master Corcoran
of the Estate of KATHY FRYE,
Filed: October 9, 2025
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chellis Garcia, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 24, 2022, Kathy Frye2 filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.3 (the “Vaccine
Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October
2, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
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 Ms. Frye died of an unrelated cause on April 2, 2025, and Sonya F. Smith, Administrator of the Estate of
Kathy Frye, was substituted as Petitioner in this claim. ECF No. 36.
3 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-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons set forth below, and after holding an expedited hearing on the
disputed issues, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for Ms. Frye’s SIRVA
Table injury.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was initiated in May 2022. On October 2, 2023, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report contesting Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation. ECF No. 23. In
reaction Petitioner filed a Motion for Findings of Facts on November 2, 2023. ECF No. 24.
Subsequently, I ordered Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s motion and address
whether Petitioner has established a SIRVA Table claim. Non-PDF Order filed November
9, 2023. Respondent filed a response brief on December 18, 2023, and Petitioner filed a
reply brief on January 2, 2024. ECF Nos. 26, 28.
The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an
expedited hearing, which took place on September 5, 2025. ECF No. 30. After
considering the arguments of both sides and questioning the parties in regard to the
disputed issue at the expedited hearing on September 5, 2025, I issued an oral ruling
finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. This Ruling memorializes those
findings/determinations.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
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
2

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 8
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.
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).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 8
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
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
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. Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 8
(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. Factual Findings5
1. Situs
A preliminary issue in this case is whether Ms. Frye received a vaccine in her left
arm, as alleged. Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot establish that Ms. Frye’s pain
and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which she received her
vaccination, because her vaccine administration records indicate in two locations that she
received the flu vaccine in her right (uninjured) arm. Ex. 1 at 1-2.
Ms. Frye’s treatment records consistently document that she reported left shoulder
pain after her vaccination to her providers, and she received treatment only for her left
shoulder. Ms. Frye was seen by her primary care provider 27 days after her vaccination
on October 29, 2019, at which time she reported left arm pain “after receiving [a] flu
injection.” Ex. 3 at 21. In addition, Ms. Frye’s first physical therapy record on December
10, 2019, explicitly states: “Patient is a pleasant 67-year-old female presenting to therapy
with left shoulder pain which started when she received a flu shot injection into her left
arm.” Ex. 5 at 32 (emphasis added).
Petitioner’s allegation that Ms. Frye received her vaccination in her left shoulder is
further supported by Ms. Frye’s own declaration and that of her husband. Exs.11-12. Mr.
Frye recalled that when Ms. Frye came home from the pharmacy on October 2, 2019,
she told him that “she received a flu vaccine while she was at the pharmacy,” and he “saw
a band-aid on her left shoulder.” Ex. 12. Finally, I observe that in this case there is no
evidence that Ms. Frye complained of right shoulder pain, nor was there a significant
delay in reporting her shoulder pain that might cause her statements to be questioned
based on her memory of a more distant event. And there are no other evidentiary items
supporting a right-side vaccination.
Thus, based on the totality of the evidence, I find that Petitioner has established
that Ms. Frye received her October 2, 2019 vaccination in her left arm as alleged.
5 I have fully reviewed and considered all medical records and the parties’ filings and briefing in this matter,
however for the purpose of brevity my factual findings do not summarize and/or address all medical records
and other evidence, or each argument put forward by the parties.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 8
2. Limited Range of Motion
The second disputed issue in this case is whether Ms. Frye manifested or exhibited
limited range of motion in this case. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (requiring that a vaccine
recipient manifest “(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion . . . limited to the shoulder in
which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; . . . .”) (emphasis added).
I have previously concluded that a petitioner must affirmatively establish that he
suffered limited range of motion following vaccination to satisfy this QAI element. Bolick
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-893V, 2023 WL 8187307, at *6-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 19, 2023). I have also found that demonstrating pain and discomfort with motion
are not the equivalent to demonstrating limited range of motion, and that diagnoses such
as bursitis and impingement syndrome (even if symptoms of bursitis generally include
limited motion) do not satisfy this table requirement. Id., at *8-9. But unlike the requirement
that a Petitioner must demonstrate pain within 48 hours of vaccination, there is no
requirement that a Petitioner manifest reduced range of motion within a particular
timeframe. Id., at *7 (citing Robuck v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0465V, 2023
WL 6214986, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2023).
Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Frye had limited
range of motion in her shoulder following her vaccination until after her shoulder surgery
on September 11, 2020.6 ECF No. 23 at 7.
Preliminarily, I observe that Ms. Frye’s pre-surgery medical records and
examinations appear to generally fail to explicitly state that she had “full” or “normal” range
of motion, although they equally do not explicitly establish range of motion limits. See,
e.g., Ex. 3 at 21-22 (October 29, 2019 visit record stating “[l]eft shoulder sore after flu shot
done 10/2, muscle not sore, but joint painful. Hard to rotate, cannot sleep on it and pain
while sleeping at night.” And further documenting “Musculoskeletal [Exam]: normal gait;
left shoulder pain on rotation int[erior] [and] ext[erior], pain with abduction above 90
passive.”); Ex. 5 at 7 (Ms. Frye’s first orthopedic appointment on November 20, 2019
stating “[o]n exam of the left shoulder, she is having pain with active range of motion. She
can forward flex up to about 160 degrees with stiffness and pain, abduct to about 150 to
160 degrees with stiffness and pain.”); Ex. 5 at 18 (January 20, 2020 orthopedic
appointment stating “[o]n exam of her left shoulder, she has got good forward flex[ion],
abduction, and internal rotation with some mild difficulty. She has mild Hawkins and mild
impingement.).
6 Respondent acknowledges that Ms. Frye suffered limited range of motion subsequent to her shoulder
surgery. However, it is unnecessary in this case to resolve whether a petitioner’s reduced range of motion
demonstrated subsequent to her shoulder surgery, and likely at least partially a function of the surgery itself,
would satisfy the third QAI criteria.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 7 of 8
At least one medical record, however, supports the conclusion that Ms. Frye
manifested limited range of motion after vaccination – but also before her surgery. A close
review of the record associated with Ms. Frye’s first orthopedic visit on November 20,
2019, demonstrates that she manifested limited abduction and flexion on examination.
During that examination, Ms. Frye was able to “forward flex up to about 160 degrees with
stiffness and pain, [and] abduct to about 150 to 160 degrees with stiffness and pain.” Ex.
5 at 7. Normal shoulder range of motion for adults ranges from 165 to 180 degrees in
flexion, 170 to 180 degrees in abduction, 90 to 100 degrees in external rotation, and 70
to 90 degrees in internal rotation. CYNTHIA C. NORKIN & D. JOYCE WHITE, MEASUREMENT
OF JOINT MOTION: A GUIDE TO GONIOMETRY 72, 80, 84, 88 (F. A. Davis Co., 5th ed. 2016);
Stamm v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1590V, 2024 WL 4678224, at *5 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 1, 2024) (applying normal range of motion measurements in another
SIRVA claim as described in the text above).
Additionally, Ms. Frye’s left shoulder exam findings on November 20, 2019, can be
contrasted with her right arm findings from the same visit, stating that “[o]n exam of the
right shoulder, full forward flexion, abduction, and internal rotation,” underscoring that Ms.
Frye did not exhibit full range of motion in her left shoulder. Ex. 5 at 7 (emphasis added).
Moreover, on December 10, 2019, Ms. Frye was seen for an initial PT evaluation, at which
one of her long term goal was determined to be “[r]estore L[eft] shoulder AROM to [] WNL
[or within normal limits].” Id. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, while I acknowledge Ms. Frye’s left shoulder range of motion
limitations appear to have been minimal, Petitioner has preponderantly demonstrated that
Ms. Frye manifested some reduced or limited range of motion after her October 2019
vaccination. 7
III. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Petitioner has established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim, the
remainder of which are not contested herein. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). There is no history
of shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction that would explain the post-vaccination
injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Petitioner suffered the onset of her injury within 48
hours of her vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). And there is not preponderant
evidence of another condition that would explain the symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). However, even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table
injury or established causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant
7 I acknowledge Respondent’s argument at the expedited hearing in this case that different sources attribute
varying measurements as normal range of motion, but find the totality of the above evidence sufficient to
establish that Petitioner has demonstrated that Ms. Frye manifested reduced range of motion. Further, as
I discussed at the expedited hearing, the Vaccine Injury Table fails to define or provide any measurement
for what constitutes limited or reduced range of motion in a SIRVA claim.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 45 Filed 11/12/25 Page 8 of 8
evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered
vaccine, residual effects of injury lasting six months, etc. See generally §
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those elements are established as discussed herein or
undisputed in this claim. I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this
case.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. A Damages Order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00569-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-09
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/07/2025) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-569V
Sonya F. Smith, as Administrator Chief Special Master Corcoran
of the Estate of KATHY FRYE,
Filed: November 7, 2025
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chellis Garcia, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 24, 2022, Kathy Frye2 filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.3 (the “Vaccine
Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October
2, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On October 9, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On November 7, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award
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 Ms. Frye died of an unrelated cause on April 2, 2025, and Sonya F. Smith, Administrator of the Estate of
Kathy Frye, was substituted as Petitioner in this claim. ECF No. 36.
3 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-00569-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 5
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $105,000.00 for past
pain and suffering and $1,558.08 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 2. 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 $106,558.08 (representing $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering
and $1,558.08 for past 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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-00569-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
SONYA FRYE SMITH, as administrator of the )
estate of KATHY FRYE, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 22-569V
) Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ) ECF
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER OF DAMAGES
On May 24, 2022, Kathy Frye (“Ms. Frye” or “decedent”) 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, following the administration of an influenza vaccine she received on October 2,
2019. See Petition at 1, 3. On October 26, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating this case was not appropriate for
compensation. ECF No. 23.
On April 2, 2025, Ms. Frye died of causes unrelated to her vaccine injury claim. See
Exhibit 15 (death certificate). Her daughter, Sonya Frye Smith, was named the administrator of
her estate under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and substituted as the petitioner in this
case on August 26, 2025. See ECF No. 34, 36; Exhibit 16 (letters of administration).

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 5
On October 9, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding
that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation. ECF No. 39.1
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
the following:
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $105,000.00 in past pain and
suffering, as legal representative of Ms. Frye’s estate. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4).
Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that Ms. Frye incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,558.08. 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/ Recommended Payment
The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through
a lump sum payment as described below and request that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following:
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However,
respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the Chief
Special Master’s October 9, 2025 Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to an award
under the Vaccine Act. This right accrues following the issuance of the damages decision.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00569-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 5
A lump sum payment of $106,558.08 to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner,
Sonya Frye Smith, as legal representative of the Estate of Kathy Frye.
Petitioner agrees.2
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
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ James V. Lopez
James V. Lopez
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-3655
Fax: (202) 616-4310
Email: james.lopez@usdoj.gov
Date: November 7, 2025
2 If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as legal
representative of decedent’s estate at the time a payment pursuant to this Proffer is to be made,
any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties appointed by a court of competent
jurisdiction to serve as legal representative of decedent’s estate upon submission of written
documentation of such appointment to respondent.
3