VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00753
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00753
Petitioner: Megan Hydutsky
Filed: 2022-07-11
Decided: 2024-05-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-25
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 57500

AI-assisted case summary:
Megan Hydutsky filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccination on November 25, 2019. She further alleged that the injury caused residual effects for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation, specifically stating that she suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on March 22, 2024, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 9, 2024, the Respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, recommending an award of $57,500.00 for pain and suffering, which Petitioner agreed to. The Chief Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages on May 10, 2024, awarding Megan Hydutsky a lump sum payment of $57,500.00 for pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00753-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-20
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/18/2024) regarding 30 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-753V
MEGAN HYDUTSKY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 18, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On July 11, 2022, Megan Hydutsky filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 25, 2019. Petition at 1.
A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding one of the claim’s Table
elements. For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine was most likely
administered intramuscularly in Petitioner’s left deltoid on November 25, 2019, as alleged.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post
it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).
This means the Fact 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 (2012).

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the petition, Petitioner filed a signed declaration and medical records,
but no document directly establishing proof of vaccination. ECF No. 1. Approximately two
months later, despite the issuance of a subpoena, Petitioner filed a “no records response”
from the facility from which she allegedly received the vaccination in question. ECF Nos.
6, 8, 10. The notice states that “[a] search was conducted for the November 25, 2019
Vaccine Administration Record. No records have been found.” Ex. 10 at 1. Petitioner filed
additional medical records and a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 14, 16-17. This case
was subsequently assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) in February 2023.
ECF No. 18.
In July 2023, Respondent filed a status report with his informal assessment of the
claim. ECF No. 25. Respondent did not identify issues beyond what is normally addressed
in SPU, but described one issue that required further development of the record. Id. at 2.
Respondent noted that none of Petitioner’s filed medical records document vaccine
administration. Id. Accordingly, Respondent requested Petitioner submit “any and all
available evidence to support her claim that she received a flu vaccination on November
25, 2019.” Id. I subsequently ordered Petitioner to file any evidence she could obtain to
establish she received the flu vaccine as alleged, including but not limited to, medical
records, affidavits, employment records, and/or vaccine consent forms. ECF No. 26.
Petitioner filed additional evidence supporting proof of vaccination in November
2023. ECF No. 27. Such evidence consisted of a supplemental declaration and
screenshots of text messages between Petitioner and both her friend and sister from the
alleged day of vaccination and the days immediately thereafter. See id. Petitioner then
filed an amended statement of completion confirming all evidence regarding vaccine
administration has been submitted. ECF No. 28.
I have determined that while this case awaits medical review, a factual ruling
regarding proof of vaccination will assist in its ultimate disposition. Thus, the issue of proof
of Petitioner’s November 25, 2019 flu vaccination is now ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether, despite the absence of a vaccine record, Petitioner received
a flu vaccine intramuscularly in her left deltoid on November 25, 2019, as alleged.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 8
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
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 is
not an iron-clad rule. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time but 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
3

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 8
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 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).
IV. Findings of Fact
I make these findings after a complete review of the record, including all medical
records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I highlight the following
evidence:
• While not a contemporaneous medical record, screenshots of text
messages between Petitioner and a friend on November 25, 2019 (the
same day as the alleged vaccination), show that Petitioner stated at that
time that she “was given the flu shot in [her] shoulder joint today, [and she
is] in so much pain[.]” Ex. 14 at 1 (emphasis added).
• In her signed declaration, Petitioner alleges that she received the flu vaccine
on November 25, 2019, at her place of employment – Tower Health Medical
Group Orthopedic. Ex. 1.
• The day after the alleged vaccination (November 26, 2019), Petitioner
presented to Dr. Joseph Albert (occupational health) stating that she
“received a flu shot at work yesterday and within an hour developed severe
pain in the left shoulder and difficulty moving the left arm. The vaccine was
given in the left deltoid.” Ex. 9 at 7 (emphasis added). The injury date was
listed as “November 25, 2019.” Id.
• Petitioner completed an “Employer’s Report of Occupational Injury or
Disease” (workers’ compensation form) on November 29, 2019. Ex. 4 at 1
(noting the document was “prepared” on November 29, 2019). The date of
injury was listed as “11/25/2019[,]” and the report noted that Petitioner
4

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 5 of 8
“received [a] flu vaccine [in her] left arm [and she] reports joint pain . . . .” Id.
at 2.
• On December 3, 2019, Petitioner had a follow-up with Dr. Albert. Ex. 9 at
17. The visit notes appear to contain an exact recitation of Dr. Albert’s
November 26, 2019 notes – stating that Petitioner “received a flu shot at
work yesterday and within an hour developed severe pain in the left
shoulder and difficulty moving the left arm. The vaccine was given in the left
deltoid.” Id. (emphasis added). However, the injury date is listed as
November 25, 2019. Id. Additionally, the “history of present illness” section
notes that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain had “been present 8 days” – since
November 25, 2019. Id.
• Petitioner had a workers’ compensation follow up visit on December 17,
2019. Ex. 4 at 5. The visit notes include the exact same language contained
in Petitioner’s records from November 26 and December 3, 2019. See id.
The date of injury was listed as November 25, 2019. Id.
• Petitioner went to Tower Health Medical Group – Pennsylvania Hand
Center, on December 20, 2019. Ex. 5 at 15. The chief complaint lists “left
shoulder pain for [the] past month after receiving a flu shot on 11/18.” Id.
• On February 21, 2020, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation case manager
sent an email describing the history of Petitioner’s injury and noting that she
“reported an injury occurred on 11/18/19[, a]fter receiving her flu vaccination
administered in her left arm.” Ex. 4 at 9.
• Petitioner began physical therapy on June 17, 2020, noting “onset of left
shoulder pain [in] November 2019 following [a] flu vaccination at work. She
has consulted occupational health the day following the pain[.]” Ex. 4 at 276.
• Petitioner presented for an orthopedic surgery consultation on October 15,
2020. Ex. 3 at 52. The date of the injury was listed as “11/18/2019 . . . after
a flu shot she received last year.” Id.
• On February 19, 2021, Petitioner presented for a consultation at Pain
Management Physicians. Ex. 4 at 140. The visit notes state that “[o]n
11/25/2019, she received a flu shot into her left arm above the deltoid. She
felt immediate pain in the left arm and could not move her arm.” Id.; Ex. 7
at 6.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 6 of 8
• On March 4, 2021, Petitioner underwent an orthopedic evaluation. Ex. 4 at
47. Petitioner complained of “left shoulder pain that she associates to
claimed injury of November 25, 2019[,] when she received a flu vaccine
‘high in the left shoulder[.]’” Id. She states that “after she received the
vaccine she had increasing pain to the point where she could not move her
shoulder. This caused her to go to occupational health the next day[.]” Id.
• Petitioner’s supplemental declaration, authored on November 14, 2023,
maintains that she received the subject vaccination on November 25, 2019.
Ex. 13 at 1. Petitioner attests that she “recall[s] filling out the vaccine
administration consent, but [she does not] recall receiving a copy.” Id. at 2.
She explains that she “personally reached out to [a new manager] looking
for a copy of this, but it can’t be found.” Id. Petitioner contends that “these
records were destroyed by [another manager] as [her employer] was in the
middle of getting rid of [said manager] for her unprofessional behavior.” Id.
To prevail under the Vaccine Act a petitioner has one foundational evidentiary
obligation in any claim: that he “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Section 11(c)(1)(A). Additionally, when alleging a Table SIRVA injury as in this case, a
petitioner must show he received the vaccine intramuscularly in his injured upper
arm/shoulder. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017) (Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
for a Table SIRVA).
There are many Program cases in which direct proof of vaccine administration is
missing. But when presented with sufficient preponderant circumstantial evidence – such
as consistent references in contemporaneously created medical records and/or credible
witness testimony – special masters have found vaccination to have occurred even
without a written contemporaneous record memorializing the event. Hinton v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1140V, 2018 WL 3991001, at *10-11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 9, 2018); Gambo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-0691V, 2014 WL
7739572, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 18, 2014); Lamberti v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 99-0507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2007). Of
course, not every case can succeed where such direct proof is lacking; evidence has
found to be insufficient in cases involving inconsistencies related to Petitioner’s
vaccination status and/or the events surrounding vaccination. Matthews v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 19-0414V, 2021 WL 4190265, at *6-7, 9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
19, 2021), aff’d, 157 Fed. Cl. 777 (2021) (petitioner’s reliance primarily on later notations
of an allergic reaction).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 7 of 8
In this case, the medical records are not entirely consistent as to the date of
Petitioner’s vaccine administration – a fact that is problematic given the absence of a
vaccine administration record. While the records closest in time to the alleged vaccination
record the date of vaccine administration on November 25, 2019, subsequent medical
records note onset of left shoulder pain after a vaccination on November 18, 2019. See,
e.g., Ex. 9 at 7 (a November 26, 2019 note listing onset on 11/25/2019); Ex. 4 at 1
(Petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim form noting onset on 11/25/2019); Ex. 5 at 15
(noting onset on 11/18/2019); Ex. 4 at 9 (stating an injury occurred on 11/18/2019); Ex. 3
at 52 (showing onset on 11/18/2019); Ex. 4 at 140 (stating onset on 11/25/2019); Ex. 4 at
47 (listing onset on 11/25/2019). Despite such inconsistences, in each instance, Petitioner
reported the onset of her pain following her receipt of a flu vaccine – a factor that supports
Petitioner’s allegations.
While the entries contained in Petitioner’s medical records regarding the date of
vaccine administration are indeed inconsistent, Petitioner’s records otherwise reflect a
consistent course of events. For instance, the medical records show Petitioner presented
to the occupational health unit at her place of employment on November 26, 2019, the
day following her alleged vaccination, and stated that her pain began “yesterday”
(November 25, 2019), after receiving a flu shot. Ex. 9 at 7. In Petitioner’s later visits with
treaters, she consistently described the same sequence of pain following a flu shot and
subsequent visit with occupational health within one day of vaccination. Ex. 4 at 276 (a
June 17, 2020 physical therapy record noting that Petitioner consulted with occupational
health the day after her pain began and attributing such pain to a flu shot); Ex. 4 at 47 (a
March 4, 2021 note showing that Petitioner reported pain on 11/25/2019, following a flu
shot, and she went to occupational health the next day). These later entries corroborate
Petitioner’s November 26, 2019 record – thus supporting that Petitioner received the
subject flu vaccination on November 25, 2019, as alleged.
And, despite the lack of a vaccine record, Petitioner’s employer – from whom she
received the vaccine – did not contest her workers’ compensation claim, further
supporting the truth of her assertion that she received the subject flu vaccination on
November 25, 2019. Ex. 4 at 1 (workers’ compensation claim form documenting onset on
11/25/2019, and as a result of her flu vaccination).3 More so, Petitioner’s medical records
show she was referred to treatment (including physical therapy) by her employer due to
her workers’ compensation claim. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 275. This fact supports Petitioner’s
allegations.
3 While Petitioner’s records contain a February 21, 2020 email from Petitioner’s workers’ compensation
case manager describing the onset of Petitioner’s injury after a flu vaccination on 11/18/2019, I do not find
this record to outweigh Petitioner’s official workers’ compensation form noting onset after a flu vaccination
on 11/25/2019. Compare Ex. 4 at 9, with Ex. 4 at 1.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 34 Filed 02/20/24 Page 8 of 8
In particular, it is unlikely that Petitioner’s employer, Tower Health Medical Group
Orthopedic, would have entertained her workers’ compensation claim, sending her for
treatment, without some reasonable belief that Petitioner did in fact receive an influenza
vaccination in her left deltoid on the date in question. Her employer’s actions, as well as
the consistent reports of onset following a flu vaccination on November 25, 2019, found
in contemporaneous medical records close in time to vaccination and for the purposes of
obtaining medical care, support her allegations regarding the date of vaccination.
This case presents a somewhat close call regarding whether Petitioner can
establish she received the subject vaccination on November 25, 2019, as alleged. Still,
given all of the foregoing, I find that despite the lack of a specific vaccine record, Petitioner
has provided preponderant evidence establishing that she received a flu vaccine
intramuscularly in her left deltoid on November 25, 2019, as alleged.
V. Scheduling Order
In light of my findings regarding proof of vaccination, Petitioner should finalize a
reasonable demand which she should convey, along with any needed supporting
documentation, to Respondent at any time. Respondent should consider his tentative
position in this case.
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed
following my Ruling by no later than Wednesday, February 21, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00753-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/22/2024) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 46 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-753V
MEGAN HYDUTSKY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 22, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 11, 2022, Megan Hydutsky (“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 November 25, 2019. 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.
I issued a Findings of Fact on January 18, 2024, “find[ing] the flu vaccine was most
likely administered intramuscularly in Petitioner’s left deltoid on November 25, 2019, as
alleged.” ECF No. 30. On March 21, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which
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-00753-UNJ Document 46 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2
he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 37. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “Petitioner suffered
a 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-00753-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-10
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/09/2024) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-753V
MEGAN HYDUTSKY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 9, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 11, 2022, Megan Hydutsky 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”) vaccination administered to her
on November 25, 2019. 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 March 22, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 39. On April 9, 2024, Respondent filed a Proffer
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-00753-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 5
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $57,500.00
in pain and suffering. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 41. 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 lump
sum payment of $57,500.00 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-00753-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MEGAN HYDUTSKY,
Petitioner,
v. No. 22-753V
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On July 11, 2022, Megan Hydutsky (“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
(“flu”) vaccine she received on or about November 25, 2019. Petition at 1. On March 21, 2024,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report advising
that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that the petitioner
received the subject influenza vaccine in her left arm, 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. ECF No. 37. On March 22, 2024, the Chief Special
Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 39.
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 March 22, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/10/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $57,500.00 in 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.
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 following2: a lump sum payment of $57,500.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Megan Hydutsky: $57,500.00
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
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00753-UNJ Document 47 Filed 05/10/24 Page 5 of 5
s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS
MADELYN E. WEEKS
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-3262
madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov
Dated: April 9, 2024
3