VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00911
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00911
Petitioner: Khalia Jones
Filed: 2022-08-16
Decided: 2025-09-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-01
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On August 16, 2022, Khalia Jones filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in her left arm on November 1, 2020, caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

Ms. Jones first sought care by telehealth on November 23, 2020, reporting shoulder pain after a shot close to the joint. She was prescribed an oral steroid. At an orthopedic visit on November 30, she reported significant improvement with Medrol, though she still had reduced range of motion and positive impingement testing; the orthopedist considered subacromial or subdeltoid bursal inflammation. After that, the record was sparse. An April 2021 sick visit did not mention shoulder problems, and a May 2021 preventive-care visit documented normal left upper-extremity range of motion and strength. In January 2022, before childbirth, she received a Tdap vaccine in the left arm. She returned to care in March 2022 with wrist pain and renewed shoulder complaints while caring for her baby.

Chief Special Master Corcoran found that Ms. Jones did not prove the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement. The normal May 2021 left upper-extremity examination, the long treatment gap, and the later left-arm Tdap vaccination prevented the record from showing that the November 2020 flu shot caused residual shoulder effects lasting more than six months.

On September 8, 2025, the petition was dismissed. No compensation was awarded. Ms. Jones was represented by David Carney.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, November 1, 2020, adult exact age not stated, alleged left shoulder SIRVA. DISMISSED. Petitioner reported left shoulder pain after a flu shot, improved significantly with Medrol, and had orthopedist assessment of possible bursal inflammation; however, May 2021 records documented normal left upper-extremity range of motion and strength, there was a long treatment gap until after childbirth, and a January 2022 left-arm Tdap vaccination complicated the history. Chief Special Master Corcoran found six-month severity not proven. Award: none. Attorney David Carney.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00911-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-09
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/08/2025) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0911V
KHALIA JONES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 8, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On August 16, 2022, Khalia Jones 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”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November
1, 2020. Petition at 1. This case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
Respondent argues that the claim cannot meet the statutory severity requirement,
and for the reasons stated below I deem the claim appropriately dismissed on that basis.
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-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 2 of 8
I. Procedural History
On December 4, 2023, about 15 months after this case was initiated, Respondent
filed his Rule 4(c) Report arguing that “Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she
suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months following her receipt
of the flu vaccine,” because she sought treatment for one month after vaccination and
then did not seek any further treatment for more than 15 months. Rule 4(c) Report at 9.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on February 5, 2024. ECF No.
26. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on April 5, 2024, and Petitioner filed a reply
(“Repl.”) on April 18, 2024. ECF No. 27-28. The matter is now ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Facts
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on November 1, 2020. Ex. 1 at
5. Three weeks later, on November 23, 2020, she had a telehealth appointment during
which she reported left shoulder pain after a “flu shot given close to [her] shoulder joint 3
weeks ago.” Ex. 9 at 16. Petitioner was given an oral steroid prescription and advised to
see an orthopedist if she did not quickly improve. Id. at 16-17.
A week later, Petitioner saw an orthopedist for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 33.
She reported “significant” improvement with the Medrol Dosepak. Id. On exam, her range
of motion was reduced and the Hawkins-Kennedy impingement test was positive. Id.
Petitioner was advised that she may have “inflamed subacromial subdeltoid bursa.” Id. at
34. The only treatment recommended was “continue[d] observation” and Petitioner was
told to follow up with her primary care provider (“PCP”) for further care. Id.
Over four months later, on April 14, 2021, Petitioner was seen by a nurse
practitioner for a sick visit. Ex. 3 at 43. The record does not indicate any complaints of
shoulder pain.
On May 13, 2021, Petitioner was seen for a preventative care visit in connection
with her fertility treatments. Ex. 4 at 10. The physical exam specifically states “LUE:
normal range of motion and strength.” Id. at 13.
Petitioner’s fertility treatments were successful and she became pregnant. On
January 3, 2022, just before the birth of her child, she received another flu vaccine dose
(this time in her right arm), and a Tdap vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 4 at 28. She was
hospitalized from February 3-5, 2022 for her child’s birth. See generally Ex. 11.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 3 of 8
Petitioner returned to her PCP on March 16, 2022. Ex. 4 at 18. She now reported
pain “at her left wrist at [the] base on [thumb]” and “ongoing issues with her left shoulder
which is getting exacerbated by lifting the baby.” Id. at 20. The physical exam states only
“pain when lifting her left shoulder.” Id. at 21. Petitioner was diagnosed with tendonitis in
her left wrist and referred to an orthopedic surgeon. Id. There is no diagnosis related to
Petitioner’s left shoulder,3 and no recommended treatment.
B. Witness Testimony
Petitioner filed a declaration dated August 25, 2022, in support of her claim. Ex. 2.
She stated that “it has been eight months4 since the onset of [her] shoulder injury, and
[she] still experience[s] significant residual effects,” including difficulty sleeping and
completing the activities of daily living. Id. at ¶7. She stated that she had tried cortisone
injections to relieve her pain, but has been told there are no other treatment options. Id.
Petitioner has “elected to not continue to receive corticosteroid injections because they
are expensive, only help for a short period of time,” and have to be limited in number. Id.
at ¶15.
Petitioner maintains that her pain was “constant and excruciating” for the first six
months after her vaccination. Ex. 2 at ¶13. Then, her pain became more intermittent, but
continued to limit her activities. Id. at ¶15. She describes herself as “constantly exhausted,
in pain,” and “worried that [her] shoulder will never fully recover and that [she] will be
forced to live with a limited range of motion and pain for the rest of [her] life.” Id. at ¶17.
Petitioner’s co-worker, Marcia de Oliveira Fernandes, filed a declaration dated July
11, 2023. Ex. 12. Ms. Fernandes had worked with Petitioner for approximately five years
and speaks to her regularly. Id. at ¶2-3. She recalled Petitioner taking an “excessive”
amount of time off from work to go to doctors for a few months after her vaccination. Id.
at ¶4-5. Ms. Fernandes remembered Petitioner telling her that “she was struggling with
her shoulder pain interfering with caring for her baby,” and that she could not lift him
without severe pain. Id. at ¶7.
Petitioner’s friend, Samantha McGeary, filed a declaration dated August 1, 2023.
Ex. 13. Ms. McGeary is a registered nurse and recalled Petitioner calling her after her
vaccination to seek her advice about her shoulder pain. Id. at ¶1, 5. She remembered
Petitioner continuing to complain of “severe” shoulder pain during their periodic
conversations. Id. at ¶6. Ms. McGeary stated that Petitioner was undergoing fertility
3 The record does list “subacromial bursitis” with an onset of 11/30/2020 as a reviewed problem. Ex. 4 at
20.
4 Petitioner’s affidavit is dated August 25, 2022, one year and nine months after her vaccination on
November 1, 2020. See Ex. 2 at 5.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 4 of 8
treatments “in November of 2020 and the beginning of 2021,” which caused her to
postpone treatment for her shoulder pain. Id. at ¶7. She recalled Petitioner returning to
treatment in March 2022 after giving birth because she “finally felt like she was able to
seek out treatment for her shoulder.” Id. at ¶8. Petitioner’s most recent complaint of
shoulder pain to Ms. McGeary was one week before her declaration. Id. at ¶9.
Petitioner’s best friend, Shandel Carter, filed a declaration dated June 21, 2023.
Ex. 14. Ms. Carter stated that she speaks with Petitioner daily, including the day of her
vaccination, when Petitioner called her to express her concern at “how much pain she
was in immediately after the vaccination.” Id. at ¶5. She recalled Petitioner asking her to
help with household tasks and daily activities due to her shoulder pain. Id. Ms. Carter
recalled that “between November 2020 and March 2020, [Petitioner] continuously
complained about her shoulder pain . . . daily.” Id. at ¶6. She stated that Petitioner did not
seek treatment until March 2022 “because she was dealing with a high-risk pregnancy
and complications.” Id. She witnessed Petitioner “struggling with picking up her son and
also bringing in and out of his carrier” after giving birth. Id. Ms. Carter also noted that
Petitioner “began experiencing pain in her hand.” Id.
Petitioner’s friend, Anita Nutter, filed a declaration dated September 13, 2023. Ex.
15. Ms. Nutter stated that she typically communicates with Petitioner daily. Id. at ¶2. She
recalled Petitioner telling her about the “nearly unbearable” pain she was experiencing
after her vaccination. Id. at ¶3. She recalled Petitioner having to “missed a lot of work to
visit the doctor and try to get help for her shoulder pain.” Id. at ¶4. She stated that
Petitioner told her about “many visits to her primary physician” for treatment for shoulder
pain. Id. Ms. Nutter stated that she knew that Petitioner could not seek treatment “for a
period of time because she was in the process of seeing fertility doctors to try and get
pregnant.” Id. at ¶5. She stated that during pregnancy, Petitioner’s “main priority was
having a safe and healthy pregnancy.” Id. Ms. Nutter stated that once the baby was born,
Petitioner told her that her shoulder pain was worsening. Id. She recalled that Petitioner
“sought out further treatment for her shoulder after giving birth, but her pain still lingers.”
Id. at ¶6.
III. Authority
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
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

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 5 of 8
*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).
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 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).
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
5

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 6 of 8
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. Analysis
Respondent contests whether the record supports the conclusion that she
suffered the residual effects of her vaccine injury for more than six months, as required
by the Vaccine Act. Resp. at 8. Because Petitioner received her vaccination on
November 1, 2020, and experienced immediate pain, she must establish that her
symptoms continued until at least May 1, 2021. Ex. 1 at 5; Ex. 2 at ¶10.
The record clearly demonstrates the kind of close-in-time to vaccination facts
supportive of a SIRVA. Thus, Petitioner had a telemedicine appointment within three
weeks of her vaccination, and then had an in-person orthopedic evaluation one week
later, on November 30, 2020. Ex. 3 at 33-34; Ex. 9 at 16-17.
After that, however, there are no medical records evidencing left shoulder pain until
March 16, 2022 – more than 15 months later. Petitioner argues that the March 16th visit
is sufficient to satisfy the severity requirement because it contains a diagnosis of
subacromial bursitis dating back to November 2020, and because it documents that
Petitioner complained of “ongoing issues with her left shoulder which is getting
exacerbated by lifting the baby.” Mot. at 10; Repl. at 7. But Petitioner’s chief complaint
during that visit was new left wrist pain. Ex. 4 at 20. And although Petitioner mentioned
shoulder pain during the visit, no treatment was recommended. Id. at 21.
Thus, even to the extent shoulder issues still existed at this time, this record does
not support the inference that they were ongoing – and documents in the immediate
months thereafter do not corroborate that contention. Petitioner had a sick visit with her
PCP on April 13, 2021, during which she may not reasonably have been expected to
mention shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 43. But when she visited her doctor on May 13, 2021 (a
time very close to six months after the onset of her pain) for a preventative care physical,
Petitioner’s musculoskeletal exam revealed full range of motion and strength of her left
upper extremity. See Ex. 4 at 13.
This May 2021 record directly contradicts the witness statements – which overall
indicate that Petitioner was regularly in severe pain, particularly in the first six months
after vaccination. See Ex. 2 at ¶13 (“In the six months after I received the vaccine, my
pain was constant and excruciating.”); Ex. 13 at ¶6; Ex. 14 at ¶6; Ex. 15 at ¶3. This kind
of testimonial evidence has been deemed insufficient to establish that the six-month
requirement has been met. See, e.g., Uetz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-
29V, 2014 WL 7139803, at * 3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 21, 2014) (finding affidavits
6

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 7 of 8
contrary to the contemporaneous medical record did not support a finding that the six-
month requirement had been satisfied); see also Volger v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 11-424V, 2014 WL 1991851, at *4, 8-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25, 2014)
(recognizing that filed affidavits can “bulwark” a claim that an injury meets the six-month
requirement, but not in the face of a medical record to the contrary). The record overall
supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s vaccine-related shoulder pain likely resolved
before this time.
Petitioner argues that she did not seek further treatment for her shoulder pain
because she “elected not to continue to receive corticosteroid injections because they are
expensive, only help for a short period of time, and [she is] only able to receive so many.”
Ex. 2 at ¶15. But Petitioner has not filed any medical records indicating that she was ever
given a cortisone injection. The orthopedist that Petitioner saw on November 30, 2020
did not recommend an injection, indicated that Petitioner was improving with oral steroid
treatment, and recommended further treatment with her PCP. Ex. 3 at 33-34. Even
Petitioner’s own recitation of the relevant facts does not suggest that she sought further
treatment after the November 30 visit, or received an injection. See Mot. at 3-4. Further,
Petitioner’s witnesses more consistently associated the gap in Petitioner’s shoulder
treatment to her fertility treatments and pregnancy, than to the lack of available treatment.
See Ex. 13 at ¶7; Ex. 14 at ¶6; Ex. 15 at ¶5. Petitioner’s explanation for the gap in
treatment is simply not corroborated by the medical record evidence.
Finally, Petitioner’s records establish that on January 3, 2022 – two months before
she returned to treatment - Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 4 at 28.
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right arm at the same appointment, suggesting
that she could have chosen to avoid an additional vaccination in her left arm. Id. And
Petitioner offered no explanation for why she would receive another vaccine in her left
arm, if, at the time she continued to experience (for more than a year) the type of “life
changing” shoulder pain described in her declaration. See Ex. 2 at ¶14, 16-17.
In many cases, efforts to treat shoulder pain beyond the severity timeframe – and
after substantial gaps in treatment - allow for the conclusion that the claimant was still
experiencing pain, even if he or she did not consistently seek treatment during a gap
period. Here, however, Petitioner’s post-six months treatment does not provide
preponderant evidence that her symptoms at that time were a continuation the previous
shoulder pain, and therefore, caused by her vaccination. During the gap, Petitioner went
through pregnancy and childbirth, and received another vaccination in her injured arm.
Further, at the time she returned to treatment, she complained of new onset left wrist
pain, suggesting there may be another cause for her shoulder pain that day. There is
simply insufficient evidence of continuous symptoms from vaccination through at least
May 1 2020.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00911-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/09/25 Page 8 of 8
Given the above, I cannot conclude that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of
her vaccine-related injury for the six months required by the Act.
CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner has failed to meet the statutory severity requirement set forth
in Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i), Petitioner cannot establish entitlement and therefore, I must
DISMISS her claim in its entirety. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this
Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, he must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
8