VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01283
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01283
Petitioner: Jessica Hampton
Filed: 2022-09-13
Decided: 2026-05-01
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2021-12-12
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 151786

AI-assisted case summary:
Jessica Hampton filed a petition for compensation on September 13, 2022, alleging a Table injury of a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) due to a Tdap vaccine received on December 12, 2021. The respondent contested entitlement, arguing that the onset of pain was not within 48 hours and that other conditions could explain the symptoms. However, the Special Master found that the delay in seeking treatment was reasonable given intervening injuries from a hiking accident and that her pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome did not fully explain the shoulder pain. The court also found that the contemporaneous medical record documenting injection in the left arm was likely an error, as the petitioner consistently reported receiving the vaccine in her right shoulder, which is consistent with SIRVA claims. The petitioner was found entitled to compensation. The court awarded $148,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,786.89 for unreimbursable medical expenses, totaling $151,786.89. The injury involved multiple doctor's appointments, MRIs, physical therapy, steroid injections, and a surgical procedure.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01283-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-06-02
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/01/2026 ) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement,, DECISION of Special Master,, 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-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1283V
UNPUBLISHED
JESSICA HAMPTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 1, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 13, 2022, Jessica Hampton filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging the Table injury of a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) due to receipt of a Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on December 12, 2021. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
For the reasons set forth below, and after holding a “Motions Day” hearing on
entitlement and damages, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, and I award
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, because it
contains a reasoned explanation for my determination. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 10
damages in the amount of $151,786.89, representing $148,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $3,786.89 in unreimbursed out-of-pocket medical expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was activated from “pre-assignment review” on October 21, 2022. (ECF
No. 10). Thereafter, Petitioner filed additional medical records. Once Respondent had
opportunity to review the record, he concluded that he did not believe compensation was
appropriate in this case, filing a contesting Rule 4(c) Report on February 20, 2024.
Petitioner filed her Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages on
March 5, 2024. (ECF No. 29). Respondent filed his Response Brief on May 31, 2024.
(ECF No. 35). Petitioner filed a reply June 10, 2024. (ECF No. 36).
On February 27, 2026, I proposed this case for an expedited hearing on March 27,
2026, at which time I would decide the disputed issues based on all evidence filed to date
and any oral argument from counsel. (ECF No. 37). The parties agreed, and the “Motions
Day” hearing took place as scheduled. During the hearing, I orally ruled on Petitioner’s
entitlement to compensation and then made an oral damages determination. This
Decision memorializes those findings and determinations.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 10
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 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;
3 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. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 4 of 10
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(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) (2017).
B. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
Respondent contests entitlement based on two of the four QAI criteria - whether
the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and whether there
is another condition or abnormality that would explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Response
at 14-17. Regarding onset, Respondent emphasizes that Petitioner did not report or seek
treatment for her alleged right arm pain until February 8, 2022, almost two months post-
vaccination, despite having six intervening medical appointments which were mostly
related to injuries sustained by Petitioner in a hiking accident. Response at 14.
Respondent also argues that the contemporaneous medical records consistently make
generalized references to right arm pain beginning after vaccination, but without
specifying a more precise onset. Id.
I find that the delay in question was not facially unreasonable, especially in
comparison to what has characterized the course of seeking treatment for many other
successful claims. Vaccine Act claimants reasonably expect any post-vaccination pain to
be transient, or not serious enough to merit evaluation by a medical professional. And in
this case, Petitioner’s intervening medical appointments were almost entirely related to
treatment for injuries sustained in a hiking accident. Resolving those issues (including
having medical staples removed from her head) superseded Petitioner’s concern over
her right shoulder pain from vaccination. Additionally, although the records could contain
more clarity on a specific onset timeframe, they do not propose an onset date outside the
Table timeframe. Therefore, I find that Petitioner has established onset by preponderant
evidence.
Respondent also argues that another condition or abnormality is present that
would explain Petitioner’s symptoms, including Petitioner’s preexisting carpal tunnel
syndrome (“CTS”) and possibly undiagnosed cervical radiculopathy. Response at 16-17.
Respondent notes that Petitioner declined to undergo an NCS/EMG to confirm that CTS
was the source of her right hand numbness, and to rule out the potential for cervical
radiculopathy. Id. at 17. However, based on the record it appears that Petitioner’s CTS
4

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 5 of 10
was a comorbid condition rather than an active contributor to her right shoulder pain.
Petitioner has noted that she previously experienced issues with CTS during her
pregnancy, which predated the casual vaccination. Furthermore, none of Petitioner’s
treating physicians ever attributed her fingertip numbness to her shoulder injury, and as
Petitioner notes there are no medical records linking Petitioner’s right shoulder injury to
her right fingertip paresthesia, CTS, or cervical radiculopathy. Thus, based on a
preponderance of the evidence, although it is undisputed that Petitioner had underlying,
comorbid CTS, that condition is not sufficient to explain Petitioner’s right shoulder
symptoms. Petitioner has established the fourth QAI requirement.
Otherwise, the record contains sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied
the other QAI criteria. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) & (iii)-(iv). A thorough review of the
record in this case does not reveal any history of pain or dysfunction in Petitioner’s right
shoulder prior to receiving the Tdap vaccine. The record also reflects that Petitioner’s
symptoms from her SIRVA were limited to her right shoulder. As I stated during the
expedited hearing, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been preponderantly
established.
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements
of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of her injury,
and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
Respondent notes that the vaccine administration record documents an injection
in Petitioner’s left arm, not her right. Response at 13. Respondent then argues that
Petitioner has failed to offer preponderant evidence that she received the vaccination in
her right arm as alleged, because she has failed to produce any extrinsic evidence and
that any later statements that she received the flu vaccination in her right arm should not
outweigh the contemporaneous medical record that clearly documents administration in
her left arm. Id.
Upon consideration of the record, I find that it is more likely than not that the
notation for administration in the left arm for the December 12, 2021 vaccination is in
error. This kind of documented vaccine administration error has previously been noted as
“an issue that arises repeatedly in the specific context of SIRVA, both because SIRVA is
a localized injury occurring near the site of injection and that because experience . . . has
shown that pharmacy vaccine administration records are not necessarily reliable in
documenting injection site.” Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No., 2021 WL
1940435, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021). In Mezzacapo, testimony given by a
5

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 6 of 10
Rite Aid pharmacist established that this error typically stems from inputs to be completed
prior to the actual vaccination, because the request must be processed through the
vaccinee’s insurance, and that she always listed a left-arm injection site because most
people are right-hand dominant. Mezzacapo, 2021 WL 1940435, at *6. This testimony
was deemed consistent from similar testimony from other pharmacists in other cases. Id.
Although the record in the instant case does not contain any comparably-strong
extrinsic evidence, I note that in every medical visit associated with her SIRVA, Petitioner
consistently described the inciting event as a vaccination received in her right shoulder.
In this case, that is enough to meet the preponderant test.
Regarding the other requirements, there is ample proof that Petitioner suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and there is no indication that she
has received any other award or settlement as a result of this injury. Therefore, Petitioner
has satisfied all of the requirements for compensation.
III. Compensation to be Awarded
A. Parties Arguments
Petitioner requests $150,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, maintaining that her
treatment involved multiple doctor’s appointments, three MRIs, 21 sessions of physical
therapy, two steroid injections, and an ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy of her right
anterior supraspinatus tendon. Petitioner also alleges that she still experiences the
sequela of her SIRVA injury to this day. Mot. at 12. She favorably compares the facts and
circumstances in her case to those experienced by the petitioners in Tumolo, S.C., and
Reed, who received $170,000.00, $160,000.00, and $160,000.00 respectively, for their
past pain and suffering.4 Id. at 29-31. Petitioner also requests $3,786.89 in
unreimbursable out-of-pocket medical expenses. Id. at 31.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner should receive the lesser amount of
$35,000.00. Response at 30. Respondent argues that the facts and circumstance more
closely resemble the circumstances of the petitioners in Allner and Clendaniel, in which
petitioners were each awarded $60,000.00.5 Id. at 29-30. Respondent also notes that his
4 Tumolo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-343V, 2020 WL 6279711 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 1,
2020); S.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-341V, 2021 WL 2949763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
14, 2021); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 1, 2019).
5 Allner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1048V, 2022 WL 6962656 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 9,
2022); Gootee v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-827V, 2024 WL 5295109 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Dec. 2, 2024).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 7 of 10
proposed amount is inclusive of both pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses.
Response at 19.
B. Legal Standards for Pain and Suffering Awards
In another decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be considered in
determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby
incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Friberg v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 2022).
In sum, compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). The petitioner bears the
burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 18, 1996). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.6
C. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, I have
carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but
not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, signed affidavits, filings, and all assertions
made by the parties in written documents and at the expedited hearing held on March 27,
2026. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-
SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However,
my determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case.
Pursuant to my oral ruling on March 27, 2026 (which is fully adopted herein), I find
that $148,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for
Petitioner’s pain and suffering.
6 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
7

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 8 of 10
In making this determination, I have considered relevant facts such as the
moderate course of her injury, with her treatment lasting for approximately 20 months.
During this time, Petitioner reported pain levels from 3/10 at best (prior to surgery) and
8/10 at worst, and most frequently reported at 4-6/10. She also attended 21 sessions of
physical therapy and had eight chiropractic sessions, although those sessions focused
on Petitioner’s neck and back in addition to her right shoulder. She also underwent three
MRIs (two of her right shoulder and one of her back which aided her treating physicians
in ruling out cervical radiculopathy as a cause of her right shoulder symptoms), two steroid
injections, and one surgical procedure, an ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy of the right
anterior supraspinatus tendon. As I noted at the hearing, although the tenotomy may not
be quite as invasive a procedure as typical arthroscopic surgery, it is substantially
invasive enough to merit compensation above $100,000.00 (consistent with how SIRVA
claims featuring surgery are treated in the Vaccine Program).
The overall severity of the SIRVA in the instant case was not high enough to
warrant $150,000.00, however. The cases cited to by Petitioner where such an award
was issued are distinguishable due to the greater severity of injury in those
circumstances. The Tumolo petitioner, for example, underwent one arthroscopic surgery,
two injections, four MRIs, and 14 sessions of PT – however the clinical course of
treatment was approximately four years, substantially longer than the instant case.
Tumolo, 2020 WL 6279711, at *14-15. The S.C. petitioner also had one surgery, four
injections and 95 PT sessions over an approximately three year treatment course, again
making it a more severe overall injury than Ms. Hampton suffered. S.C., 2021 WL
2949763, at *4-5.
However, Petitioner notably has not asked for an amount commensurate with
those awarded in Tumolo, S.C., or Reed, in which pain and suffering damages of
$170,000.00, $160,000.00, and $160,000.00 were each awarded respectively. Indeed,
Petitioner has acknowledged that the tenotomy is not quite as invasive as an arthroscopy,
and tailored her demand accordingly. Mot. at 30-31. The awareness to compare the
injuries in terms of pain levels and relative course of treatment while acknowledging the
parts of that treatment that were less severe bulwarks the reasonableness of Petitioner’s
demand.
Respondent’s cited cases of Allner and Clendaniel are distinguishable as far less
severe injuries than the instant case. Neither case involved any surgical intervention, and
both involved lower pain levels, fewer MRIs, and much fewer PT required (the Allner
petitioner had eight PT sessions while the Clendaniel petitioner did not have any PT at
all, instead relying on arthrocentesis procedures more similar in invasiveness to a steroid
8

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 9 of 10
injection). And each of those petitioners was ultimately awarded $60,000.00 for their pain
and suffering – more than Respondent has proposed in this matter.7
Taking into account the record of Petitioner’s SIRVA and the comparable cases
cited by Petitioner and Respondent, as well as my experience in adjudicating similar
cases, I find that $148,000.00 represents a reasonable amount of compensation for
Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.
D. Appropriate Compensation for Past Unreimbursable Expenses
In addition to pain and suffering damages, Petitioner has requested that she be
awarded $3,786.89 in past unreimbursable expenses. Motion at 31. Petitioner has also
filed adequate documentation supporting these incurred costs. See generally Ex. 25. In
his Response and also at the hearing, Respondent did not dispute any of these costs as
unreasonable but rather reiterated his contention that his proposed amount of $35,000.00
was inclusive of all elements of damages. Response at 30. Because Respondent has not
disputed any of Petitioner’s claimed expenses and Petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation documenting them, Petitioner’s past unreimbursable expenses will be fully
awarded.
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the entire
record, I find that Petitioner’s right shoulder injury meets the definition for a Table SIRVA.
Thus, Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Furthermore, I find that
$148,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s
actual pain and suffering and that $3,786.89 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s past unreimbursable expenses.8
I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $151,786.89, representing
$148,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $3,786.89 in unreimbursable
expenses., to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
7 Respondent argues that $35,000.00 is fair in this case because entitlement had not yet been found for
Petitioner, making the amount a reasonable sum in light of litigation risk given his objections. Response at
30. However, while such an offer may be defensible in the context of settlement discussions, it loses its
value at this stage (where Respondent should propose what he takes are reasonable damages assuming
he does not prevail on entitlement – as is the case in this matter).
8 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
9

Case 1:22-vv-01283-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/02/26 Page 10 of 10
account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine
Act. Id.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance
with this Decision.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 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.
10