VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00762
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00762
Petitioner: Charles Tillman
Filed: 2022-07-13
Decided: 2025-12-15
Vaccine: influenza (same-day Pneumovax also administered; Pneumovax not covered)
Vaccination date: 2020-09-29
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 10000

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 13, 2022, Charles Tillman filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 29, 2020 caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. He also received Pneumovax in the right deltoid that day, but Pneumovax was not a covered vaccine under the Program.

Mr. Tillman had no documented prior right-shoulder pain. About six weeks after vaccination, he reported right shoulder pain since the flu shot, with significant burning and pain at injection, trouble sleeping, and no relief from ice, heat, or Voltaren. Orthopedic records in 2021 again tied the pain to the September 2020 flu shot and described difficulty working as an electrician. He received a corticosteroid injection. A later annual visit documented continued shoulder pain interrupting sleep and limiting work, and the record referred to an MRI showing a partial-thickness rotator cuff tear, although the MRI report itself was not filed.

Respondent contested the Table SIRVA elements and severity. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement on August 5, 2025. On December 15, 2025, he adopted respondent's proffer and awarded Mr. Tillman $10,000.00 as a lump sum.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine September 29, 2020, with same-day noncovered Pneumovax, allegedly causing right Table SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; COMPENSATED. Evidence: no prior right-shoulder pain, later reports of burning/pain beginning at injection, sleep and work effects, orthopedic follow-up, steroid injection, referenced partial-thickness rotator cuff tear. Respondent contested Table elements/severity. Award $10,000. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition July 13, 2022; entitlement August 5, 2025; damages December 15, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00762-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-09
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/05/2025) regarding 33 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-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0762V
CHARLES TILLMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 5, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sara J. Watkins, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 13, 2022, Charles Tillman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on September 29,
2020. Petition at ¶2, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner more likely than not suffered
the residual effects of his alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months, and
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-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 9
that he has satisfied all of the requirements of a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore, Petitioner
is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On October 30, 2023 (about 15 months after the case was initiated), Respondent
filed his Rule 4(c) Report, arguing that Petitioner could not satisfy the Act’s “severity
requirement” or the Table elements of a SIRVA claim. ECF No. 28. Petitioner
subsequently filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on January 24, 2024. ECF
No. 29. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on February 21, 2024 and Petitioner filed
a reply (“Repl.”) on March 20, 2024. ECF No. 30, 32. The matter is now ripe for
adjudication.
II. Relevant Facts
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received flu and Pneumovax3 vaccines in his right deltoid on September
29, 2020, in Pittsburgh, PA. ECF No. 6-2 at 2-3. There is no record evidence that
Petitioner had any history of right shoulder pain prior to his vaccination.
Six weeks after his vaccination, on November 11, 2020, Petitioner saw his primary
care provider (“PCP”) via a telemedicine appointment. Ex. 13-1 at 57.4 He reported right
shoulder pain since his flu shot, which began with “significant burning and pain at the time
of the injection” and had persisted since. Id. He reported no relief from home remedies,
such as ice, heat, and Voltaren gel, and that he required supplements to sleep at night.
Id. He was diagnosed with impingement syndrome and referred to physical therapy. Id.
at 60. The doctor encouraged him to follow up in six months or as needed. Id.
Petitioner next sought treatment almost nine months later, when he saw an
orthopedist in August 2021 with complaints of “right shoulder pain since September 2020
when he had his flu shot.” ECF No. 6-1 at 22, 24. He reported having an MRI that showed
a “partial thickness rotator cuff tear.”5 Id. at 24. He reported having difficulty with his work
as an electrician. Id. On exam, Petitioner’s right shoulder range of motion was 160
3 The Pneumovax vaccine is not covered by the Vaccine Injury Table.
4 Petitioner filed exhibits labeled 1-3 at ECF No. 6 on August 11, 2022. Petitioner then filed an un-numbered
exhibit at ECF No. 13 on March 6, 2023 and exhibits labeled 1-4 at ECF No. 25 on September 14, 2023.
Therefore, for clarity exhibits will be identified herein by ECF No.
5 In May, 2023, Petitioner asked about obtaining records from his MRI, which he noted was in July 2021,
and alleged that he had an MRI in his affidavits. See ECF No. 7 at ¶7; ECF No. 23-1 at ¶7; ECF No. 25-1
at 26. However, no MRI orders or reports have been filed.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 9
degrees in forward flexion and abduction, external rotation to 70 degrees, and internal
rotation to T10. Id. at 27. Impingement signs were positive. Id. Petitioner was given a
corticosteroid injection and was instructed that if he experienced improvement he would
be sent for physical therapy and if not, surgery would be considered. Id. at 23-24, 27.
After another lengthy treatment gap (more than a year and a half), Petitioner had
a telemedicine annual exam on March 9, 2023. ECF No. 25-1 at 32. He reported
continued right shoulder pain that interrupted his sleep and limited him to working only 1-
2 days per week. Id. at 32. He noted that he was not financially able to take off more time
from work. Id. He reported that “he did not feel PT helped when he tried it.”6 Id. He was
encouraged to consider surgery or additional time off work when his finances allowed. Id.
at 35.
No further medical records relating to Petitioner’s shoulder pain have been filed.
B. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner filed two affidavits in support of his claim. In the first, dated June 20,
2022, he states that he developed right should pain “within hours” of his flu shot that
“continued for several months.” ECF No. 7 at ¶5-6. He stated that he underwent an MRI,
required a corticosteroid injection, and was told he may need surgery in the future. Id. at
¶7.
Petitioner’s second affidavit, dated September 11, 2023, adds information related
to left elbow pain that he developed in early 2023. See ECF No. 23-1 at ¶10-16. Petitioner
also noted that his right shoulder pain forced him to use his left hand to perform his duties
as an electrician. Id. at ¶9.
III. Applicable 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 & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
6 Petitioner indicated that he participated in telemedicine physical therapy “in winter 2021-2022”, but has
not filed any physical therapy records. See ECF No. 25-1 at 26.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 4 of 9
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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, at *19. 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 & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Human 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).
The Vaccine Act also requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects
or complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
4

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 5 of 9
Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
In addition to requirements concerning severity of petitioner’s injury, a petitioner
must establish that he 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 he
received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). 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
5

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 6 of 9
(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).
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Severity
To satisfy the statutory severity requirement, Petitioner must demonstrate that his
symptoms more likely than not continued until at least March 29, 2021 – six months after
his September 29, 2020 vaccination (as there is evidence of onset the same day). ECF
No. 13-1 at 59. Respondent argues that the medical records do not support severity,
because Petitioner had one appointment addressing his right shoulder pain six weeks
after vaccination, and then did not seek treatment again for over eight months. Resp. at
6-8. The medical records support the gap in treatment alleged by Respondent.
Respondent relies on Brennom vs. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-
0051V, 2023 WL 7490248 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2023) to support his argument. In
Brennom, I found that a petitioner had not satisfied the statutory severity requirement
when the record showed she had five months of treatment, followed by gap of over one
year. Id. at *4. In that case, however, there was additional evidence that the petitioner’s
SIRVA injury “had likely resolved” prior to the six-month mark, as partially established by
the relief provided by two cortisone injections. Id. Further, the treatment gap in that case
was approximately 13 months – starting after five months of treatment with physical
therapy and injections - and there was MRI evidence of other conditions that could have
caused the recurrence of pain. Id. at *5. In this case, by contrast, Petitioner did not receive
treatment during the gap that could have resolved the symptoms that were documented
six weeks after his vaccination.7 The gap in this case is also a bit shorter, and there is no
evidence of other conditions, or any intervening injury.
Respondent also notes that Petitioner “made no attempt to explain why he did not
seek further care for his alleged injury.” Resp. at 7. It is true that Petitioner has not
explained the gap in treatment in his Motion or Reply. But there is evidence in the record
that suggests a gap in treatment was reasonable. First, Petitioner’s PCP encouraged him
to follow up in six months – suggesting that he believed additional treatment was not
7 Petitioner was referred to physical therapy at his first appointment, but there is no evidence that he
received treatment at that time. See ECF No. 13-1 at 60. On two occasions in the medical records, Petitioner
mentioned engaging in telemedicine physical therapy, possibly during the winter of 2021-22. He did not file
any of those records. See ECF No. 25-1 at 26, 32. Notably, Petitioner does not allege any physical therapy
treatment in his Petition, Amended Petition, or Motion. See ECF No. 1, 23, 29.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 7 of 9
imminently necessary. See ECF No. 13-1 at 60. Second, there is evidence in the record
that Petitioner had financial constraints on his ability to seek ongoing treatment. See ECF
No. 25-1 at 35.
Further, when he returned to treatment, Petitioner explicitly linked his shoulder pain
back to his flu shot, and stated that it had persisted since that time. See ECF No. 6-1 at
24. At that time, he had reduced range of motion and positive impingement signs, and
received a corticosteroid injection. Id. And, unlike in Brennom, there is no evidence that
Petitioner’s symptoms had resolved prior to the six month mark. Thus, I find that
Petitioner’s situation is more similar to that in Rodionov v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 20-0842, 2023 WL 8112948 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2023). That
petitioner had two medical appointments close in time to vaccination, and then a seven-
month gap before further treatment, which spanned the six-month deadline. Id. at *5.
While Respondent is correct that there is thin evidence in this case, I find that the
evidence is nevertheless enough to satisfy the severity requirement. This is a very close
call – and Program case law counsels deciding the matter in a petitioner’s favor. Roberts
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl.
Aug. 29, 2013). The length of time between treatment and the lack of significant treatment
does, however, greatly undermine grounds for any kind of substantial award of pain and
suffering in this case (and in fact supports a very modest award, likely less than
$15,000.00). Petitioner should be mindful of this going forward.
B. Limited Range of Motion
Respondent also argues that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate limited range of
motion as required by the third QAI for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii); See
also Bolick v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0893, 2023 WL 8187307, at *7-8
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 19, 2023) (establishing that the third QAI requirement “requires
that a Petitioner demonstrate they suffered both pain and limited range of motion.”).
Respondent notes that Petitioner’s range of motion was only evaluated once during his
treatment course, and that he “demonstrated the same ROM in both arms.” Resp. at 9.
While Respondent is correct that the record indicates the same range of motion in
both shoulders, he fails to note that the exam actually revealed slightly reduced forward
flexion, abduction and external rotation. During the August 3, 2021 orthopedist visit,
Petitioner had forward flexion and abduction to 160 degrees and external rotation to 70
degrees. Ex. 6-1 at 27. Normal shoulder ROM 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 and D. Joyce White, MEASUREMENT
OF JOINT MOTION: A GUIDE TO GONIOMETRY 72, 80, 84, 88 (F. A. Davis Co., 5th ed. 2016).
7

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 8 of 9
Petitioners are not required to show that their range of motion is reduced compared
to the non-vaccinated shoulder, or even that it remains consistently the same. To read
such a requirement into the QAI would mean that any petitioner with a pre-existing injury
to the opposite shoulder would be precluded from making a claim for a SIRVA injury.
Range of motion in the affected shoulder is an objective assessment – and here,
Petitioner has provided evidence in a medical record that his right shoulder range of
motion was reduced. Therefore, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence
to satisfy the third QAI Table requirement for a SIRVA injury.
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that he experienced
limited range of motion in his right shoulder. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent has
not contested Petitioner’s proof on the remaining elements of a Table SIRVA. See 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence to establish that he suffered a Table SIRVA injury.
B. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, he need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, he must satisfy the other requirements of
Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of injury, and
the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
The vaccine record shows that Petitioner received an influenza vaccination on
September 29, 2020 in Pittsburgh, PA. Ex. 6-2 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt
of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United
States or its territories). Additionally, Petitioner has stated that he has not filed any civil
action or received any compensation for his vaccine-related injury, and there is no
evidence to the contrary. ECF No. 7 at ¶9-10; ECF No. 23-1 at 17-18; Section 11(c)(1)(E)
(lack of prior civil award). And as noted above, I have found that severity has been
established. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Therefore,
Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case. A separate damages order will be issued.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/09/25 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00762-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-04
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/15/2025 ) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 44 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0762V
CHARLES TILLMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 15, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sara J. Watkins, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 13, 2022, Charles Tillman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination he received on September
29, 2020. Petition at ¶ 2, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On August 5, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for his SIRVA. On December 12, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $10,000.00 in
compensation. 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.
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-00762-UNJ Document 44 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $10,000.00, 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.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-00762-UNJ Document 44 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
CHARLES TILLMAN,
Petitioner, No. 22-762V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On July 13, 2022, Charles Tillman (“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”). On September 14, 2023, petitioner filed an amended petition, alleging that he suffered
a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine
Injury Table, following administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on or about
September 29, 2020. ECF No. 23 at 3. On January 24, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for a
Ruling on the Record (“Motion”), arguing that he has established entitlement to compensation
for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. ECF No. 29. Respondent filed his
Response to Petitioner’s Motion on February 21, 2024, recommending that entitlement to
compensation be denied. ECF No. 30. On August 5, 2025, the Court issued a Ruling on
Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 33.
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 August 5, 2025, entitlement decision.

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 44 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5
I. Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$10,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
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:
A lump sum payment of $10,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Charles Tillman.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
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
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00762-UNJ Document 44 Filed 02/04/26 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
Email: madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov
Dated: December 12, 2025
3