VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01501
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01501
Petitioner: Kimberly M. Corpening
Filed: 2022-10-12
Decided: 2026-01-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-31
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 12, 2022, Kimberly M. Corpening, then 44, filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 31, 2019 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

Ms. Corpening's affidavit described left shoulder pain beginning after the flu vaccination and lasting longer than six months. The record included a January 2020 MRI and later physical therapy. Respondent argued that the record did not support severity because there was a gap between the January 2020 MRI and the first physical therapy visit in October 2020, and because two primary-care visits during that period did not mention shoulder pain. Respondent also argued that a later March 2022 workplace injury complicated the record.

Ms. Corpening pointed to a March 2020 physical therapy referral request and an October 2020 therapy record linking her symptoms back to the vaccination. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the Table SIRVA criteria satisfied. He treated the March 2022 workplace injury as outside the damages sought for the vaccine injury, while noting that later records still undercut the idea that her shoulder condition had fully resolved within six months. Entitlement was granted on January 2, 2026; damages remained pending.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine October 31, 2019 at age 44 causing left Table SIRVA; onset found within Table window. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; damages pending. Respondent challenged severity based on treatment gaps, intervening PCP visits without shoulder complaints, and a later March 2022 workplace injury. Evidence included affidavit, January 2020 MRI, March 2020 PT referral request, October 2020 PT records tying pain to vaccination, and later records showing persistence. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition October 12, 2022; entitlement January 2, 2026.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01501-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-06
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/02/2026) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1501V
KIMBERLY M. CORPENING, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 2, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Kelly Elizabeth Elder, Martin & Jones, LLC, Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.
Joseph Douglas Leavitt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 12, 2022, Kimberly M. Corpening 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
October 31, 2019. Petition at 1.
Review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments establishes that
Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that she suffered the residual effects or
complications of her injury for more than six months after onset. Petitioner has also
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-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 12
established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA, including that her pain and reduced
range of motion were limited to her left shoulder. Petitioner is therefore entitled to
compensation.
I. Procedural History
On April 18, 2023, this case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. ECF No. 17. An initial status conference was held on November
29, 2023. On January 24, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report setting forth his
position that compensation would not be appropriate under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 23
(“Rule 4(c) Report”).
On July 30, 2024, I entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for briefing and
for Petitioner to file any additional evidence. ECF No. 25. Petitioner filed a motion for a
ruling on the record on August 29, 2024. ECF No. 26 (“Pet’r Mot.”). Respondent filed a
response on October 11, 2024. ECF No. 28 (“Resp’t Opp’n”). Petitioner filed a reply in
support of her motion on December 2, 2024. ECF No. 30 (“Pet’r Reply). This matter is
ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. I will only summarize or discuss
evidence that directly pertains to the determinations herein, as informed by the parties’
respective citations to the record and their arguments.
A. Petitioner’s Vaccination and Initial Complaint of Left Shoulder Pain
On October 31, 2019, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left arm at her
primary care provider (“PCP”), Southern Medical Associates.3 Ex. 8 at 33; see also Ex. 7
at 2. Petitioner was 44 years at the time of vaccination. Ex. 7 at 2. Petitioner was then
under a the care of a urologist for chronic interstitial cystitis, and received regular bladder
instillations. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 40. Petitioner also had regular appointments with a
dermatologist for acne-related skin issues and an endocrinologist for
hyperthyroidism/Grave’s Disease. See, e.g., id. at 545, 1116. Petitioner did not have any
previous left shoulder pain or injury.
3 Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s vaccination record does not provide any information regarding the
site of administration. Rule 4(c) Report at 2 n.1; Resp’t Opp’n at 2 n.2. However, the form from Southern
Medical Associates has the notation for the left arm circled. See Ex. 8 at 3.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 12
On November 14, 2019 (two weeks after vaccination), Petitioner had an
appointment with Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Melissa Taylor at her PCP office. Ex. 8 at 14.
Petitioner complained of “left shoulder pain that goes down into her elbow.” Id. Petitioner
did not recall “doing anything to her arm,” and had attempted to treat the pain with
Ibuprofen. Id. NP Taylor noted that Petitioner’s left shoulder was “extremely tender” in the
anterior bursa with moderate edema and limited range of motion (“ROM”) related to pain.
Id. NP Taylor encouraged Petitioner to use ice and perform gentle exercises. Id. NP
Taylor also prescribed tramadol and prednisone. Id.
On November 18, 2019, Petitioner saw orthopedist Elizabeth McBride. Ex. 2 at
1518. Petitioner described left shoulder pain that “radiates to the neck and across her
back.” Id. Petitioner had limited ROM in both shoulders. Id. at 1522. Petitioner also
complained of “intermittent numbness of the left hand” and neck pain when looking
towards the left. Id. at 1518, 1522. However, Dr. McBride specifically stated that
Petitioner’s pain was “mainly located along the deltoid” and ordered x-rays of the left
shoulder. Id. at 1523. Dr. McBride prescribed meloxicam and provided Petitioner with
home exercises. Id.
Petitioner next saw one of Dr. McBride’s colleagues in the same practice, Dr.
Anastasios Papadonikolakis, on December 23, 2019. Ex. 2 at 1612. Dr. Papadonikolakis
repeated that Petitioner had shoulder pain that radiated to her neck and across her back.
Id. Petitioner now denied any neck pain. Id. In addition, Petitioner reported bilateral hand
numbness and tingling for the past two to three weeks. Id. After examining her wrists, Dr.
Papadonikolakis diagnosed Petitioner with carpal tunnel syndrome and prescribed her
braces for night use. Id. at 1616-17. For her left shoulder pain, Dr. Papadonikolakis
suspected a rotator cuff tear and ordered an MRI. Id. at 1617.
Petitioner underwent the MRI on January 24, 2020. Ex. 2 at 1769-70. The MRI
revealed “[m]ild rotator cuff tendinosis with focal low-grade partial articular surface tear,”
“m]oderate long head biceps tendinosis,” “[m]ild superior labral fraying,” and “[m]ild
acromioclavicular joint degenerative changes with subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis.” Id. at
1770.
On January 27, 2020, Dr. Papadonikolakis provided Petitioner with a referral to
physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 2 at 1796.4 However, Petitioner let the referral expire. See id.
at 1814. On March 13, 2020, Petitioner messaged Dr. Papadonikolakis’ office requesting
that they send her another PT referral. Id. at 1813.
4 On January 29, 2020, at Petitioner’s request, Dr. Papadonikolakis also provided a letter for her employer
that she should be exempted from future flu vaccinations. Ex. 2 at 1802-03. Dr. Papadonikolakis wrote that
Petitioner had developed “subdeltoid bursitis after a flu vaccination that she had in the fall of 2019.” Id. at
1803.
3

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 12
B. Petitioner Has a Gap in Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Petitioner asserts that due to the unprecedented COVID-19 Pandemic, she
received minimal medical care for the next several months and did not follow up with her
PT referral. See Pet’r Mot. at 4-5. Petitioner did not see her dermatologist,
endocrinologist, or urologist during this time. The only appointments that Petitioner had
between March 2020 and October 2020 were for cold and flu-type symptoms.
On April 3, 2020, Petitioner had an appointment with NP Taylor for sinus pressure,
pain, and “extensive nasal discharge.” Ex. 8 at 12. NP Taylor prescribed an antibiotic. Id.
at 13. Similarly, Petitioner saw NP Taylor on May 20, 2020 for a sore throat and nausea.
Id. at 10. Petitioner tested positive for strep and NP Taylor again prescribed an antibiotic.
Id. There is no indication that Petitioner mentioned her left shoulder pain at either of these
appointments. See id. at 10-13.
C. Petitioner Resumes Left Shoulder Treatment
On September 18, 2020, Petitioner contacted Dr. Papadonikolakis’ office for a new
PT referral for her left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 1823. Petitioner stated that she was “unable to
use previous [PT] therapy order due to pandemic.” Id. The office staff mailed the PT order
three days later.5 Id. at 1824.
Petitioner had her first PT session on October 23, 2020. Ex. 5 at 59. Petitioner
reported “left shoulder pain and a small tear which began about a year ago after a flu
injection.” Id. Petitioner rated her pain as 2-8/10 and stated that it was worse with activity.
Id. Thereafter, Petitioner had 13 PT sessions through June 21, 2021. See id. at 12-57.
At her final session, the physical therapist noted that Petitioner was doing well and
was “gradually returning to her normal activities.” Id. at 14. The physical therapist found
that Petitioner had met her therapy goals with the exception of ROM – Petitioner’s active
ROM was “technically not to goals but is similar to the right side.” Id. Petitioner was
discharged with a home exercise plan and instructed to contact her PCP to see if further
follow-up was needed. Id. After completing PT, Petitioner continued to have dermatology
and urology appointments without mentioning her left shoulder symptoms.6
5 Petitioner also contacted Dr. Papadonikolakis’ office on October 26, 2020 requesting that he fill out another
form exempting her from her employer’s flu vaccine requirement. Id. at 1834-35.
6 The next mention of Petitioner’s left shoulder occurred on August 18, 2021 when Petitioner had an
appointment with NP Taylor to review lab work and complete paperwork for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.
Ex. 8 at 4. Petitioner reported that she had an “allergic reaction to the flu vaccine she took in 2019” and had
a “severe inflammatory response.” Id. NP Taylor stated that Petitioner should not receive any further
4

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 12
D. Petitioner’s Workplace Left Shoulder Injury
On June 29, 2022 -- over a year after her last PT session -- Petitioner had an
appointment with Dr. Christopher Daly at a different orthopedist office. Ex. 5 at 8. Dr. Daly
wrote that Petitioner had been sent for a worker’s compensation-related evaluation of a
left shoulder injury sustained on March 24, 2022. Id. While standing at work, Petitioner
was struck on the back of her left shoulder by a heavy door. Id. Petitioner also reported
that “she had a pre-existing problem with the shoulder from an injection which was almost
resolved but still had pain in the shoulder.” Id. Dr. Daly took x-rays of the left shoulder and
recommended that she be referred to PT.7 Id. at 11.
On March 27, 2023, Petitioner was seen by Dr. Erik Johnson at another orthopedist
practice for a second opinion regarding the March 24, 2022 injury. Ex. 10 at 2. Petitioner
again described being hit on the back and left shoulder by a heavy steel door. Id. With
regard to her left shoulder history, Dr. Johnson wrote that Petitioner “received a
vaccination into the left deltoid in 2019. She had what sounds like either a frozen shoulder
or bursitis. That responded to therapy. She ended up doing well thereafter.” Id. In terms
of treatment of the March 24, 2022 injury, Dr. Johnson referenced that Petitioner had
received PT and massage, which “seemed to help her out,” and had undergone an MRI
of the left shoulder on November 24, 2022 with “no visualized abnormality. Id. at 2-3. Dr.
Johnson diagnosed Petitioner with a left shoulder superior labral tear and recommended
an MRI arthrogram for further advanced imaging. Id. at 3. Petitioner did not file any
additional medical records.
Petitioner filed an extremely brief affidavit stating that “[a]fter the administration of
the flu vaccine on October 31, 2019, [she] began experiencing pain in [her] left shoulder
where the vaccine had been administered” and that her shoulder injury “persisted for
more than six months.” Ex. 9 at 1.
III. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove
either (1) that he suffered an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table, or (2) that he
suffered an injury that was actually caused by his vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A),
vaccines. Id. at 4-5.
7 Petitioner also saw Dr. Jason Zook on July 1, 2022 for lower back pain related to the same March 24,
2022 workplace incident. Ex. 5 at 5-6.
5

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 12
11(c)(1). Under either method, however, a petitioner must demonstrate that the injured
person has “suffered the residual effects or complications of his illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.”8 Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i). Cases may appropriately be dismissed for failure to substantiate the
severity requirement. See, e.g., Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-328V,
2012 WL 1608839, at *4–5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing case where
medical history revealed that petitioner’s Guillain-Barré Syndrome resolved less than two
months after onset).
The petitioner carries the burden of establishing the matters required in the
petition, including the severity requirement, by a preponderance of the evidence. Section
13(a)(1)(A); see Song v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65-66 (1994),
aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Congress has stated that the severity requirement
was designed “to limit the availability of the compensation system to those individuals
who are seriously injured from taking a vaccine.” H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987),
reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2313–1, 2313–373, cited in Cloer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1908 (2012);
Wright v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Vaccine Act prohibits finding that a petitioner has met this burden “based on
the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical
opinion.” Section 13(a). Medical records must be considered, see Section 13(b)(1), and
are generally afforded substantial weight. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, the Federal Circuit has “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 factual matters required to prove elements of a Vaccine Act claim may be
established by a mix of witness statements and record proof, with the special master
required to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other
“relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184 (2013) (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine R. 8), aff’d, 746
F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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 Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the
8 Petitioner does not allege, nor would the evidence support, either alternative for establishing the severity
requirement: that the alleged injury resulted in death, or “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.”
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(ii), (iii).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 12
administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria establishing a
SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“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
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
B. Petitioner Has Established Severity by a Preponderance of the
Evidence
In order to meet the statutory six-month severity requirement, Petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered the “residual effects
or complications” of her claimed injury beyond April 30, 2020. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
7

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 12
Respondent’s challenge to severity is based on Petitioner’s lack of treatment for her left
shoulder between the date of her MRI on January 24, 2020 and her first PT appointment
on October 23, 2020. Rule 4(c) Report at 7; Resp’t Opp’n at 7. Respondent also
emphasizes that Petitioner had two PCP appointments during this period, but failed to
mention problems with her left shoulder. Rule 4(c) Report at 7-8; Resp’t Opp’n at 7-8.
Respondent’s argument ignores key aspects of the record, and relies on the
incorrect premise that a petitioner must be in formal treatment for the full six-month period
in order to make out a successful claim. Although Petitioner did not follow up in-person
with any provider regarding the MRI results, her request for a PT referral on March 13,
2020 strongly suggests that her left shoulder symptoms had not resolved. See Ex. 2 at
1814. Further, there would have been no reason for Petitioner to contact Dr.
Papadonikolakis’ office in September 2020 for a new PT referral if she was no longer
experiencing left shoulder pain. See id. at 1823. And at her first PT appointment in
October 2020, Petitioner linked her current pain back to the vaccination from
approximately one year earlier. See Ex. 5 at 59.
When taken together, this evidence rebuts Respondent’s argument that there is
not a clear connection between her reported symptoms before and after the treatment
gap. See Rule 4(c) Report at 8. Petitioner persuasively connects the facts of this case to
another matter, Lombardo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-29V, 2023 WL
8788989 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 17, 2023). See Pet’r Mot. at 7-8. The Lombardo
petitioner received a flu vaccine on November 8, 2019, and had several appointments
regarding shoulder pain, as well as an MRI, through January 2020. Lombardo, 2023 WL
8788989, at *2. That petitioner was planning on getting a second opinion regarding a
surgical repair, but then did not follow up with an orthopedist until October 2020. Id. At
this appointment, the petitioner linked her pain back to the November 2019 flu vaccine.
Id. I concluded in Lombardo that the petitioner had met the severity requirement, despite
the ten month gap and having had two telehealth appointments for unrelated issues in
the interim, and that the COVID-19 Pandemic was “a reasonable explanation for why
treatment visits may have ceased for at least some of this time.” Id. at *4.
Here as well, Petitioner’s treatment gap spanned the same time period,
corresponding to the strictest COVID-19-related shutdowns. When Petitioner sought a
new PT referral, she specifically mentioned that she had been unable to use the previous
referral due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. See Ex. 2 at 1823. Even if Petitioner could have
found a way to discuss her left shoulder with her PCP or her orthopedist during the
Pandemic, as Respondent contends, see Resp’t Opp’n at 7-8, this does not detract from
the evidence that her condition was ongoing. At most, as in Lombardo, “the light history
8

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 9 of 12
of treatment also suggests a mild injury -- which will likely impact damages in this case.”9
2023 WL 8788989, at *4.
Respondent argues that Lombardo is distinguishable because the petitioner’s
assertion that the COVID-19 Pandemic prevented her from receiving medical treatment
was “corroborated” by the fact that she had two telehealth appointments between January
and October 2020. Resp’t Opp’n at 9. But here, Petitioner’s two in-person PCP
appointments in the same timeframe “further substantiat[es] that her ability or willingness
to seek medical care during the [P]andemic was not hampered.” Id. However, my decision
in Lombardo deemed it understandable that the petitioner did not mention her shoulder
during an appointment for a work clearance and a gynecology exam – independent of
when the visits occurred or their nature. 2023 WL 8788989, at *4. The same is true here
of Petitioner’s unrelated appointments for upper respiratory infections.
Petitioner’s PCP appointments in April and May 2020 in which she did not mention
left shoulder pain are admittedly not supportive of severity, but they do not disprove
Petitioner’s explanation that she was limited in her ability to obtain medical care during
the earliest months of the Pandemic. Indeed, Petitioner also ceased treatment of her other
chronic conditions during this period.10
Respondent also highlights the absence of evidence that Petitioner’s symptoms
reported after March 24, 2022 were connected to the October 31, 2019 vaccination. Rule
4(c) Report at 8. However, Petitioner makes clear that she is not seeking to relate her
workplace injury to the vaccine. See Pet’r Mot. at 5-6; Pet’r Reply at 9. Nonetheless, even
though Petitioner’s post-March 2022 treatment should not be considered in any damages
award, these records still serve to refute Respondent’s primary argument that Petitioner’s
vaccine-related left shoulder injury resolved within six months. Petitioner’s statements at
these later orthopedic appointments confirm that she continued to experience residual
effects from the vaccination, albeit extremely mild, beyond her last PT session. See Ex.
5 at 8; Ex. 10 at 2.
9 Petitioner also briefly discusses McGraw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. Pet’r Mot. at 8 (citing No. 21-
72V, 2024 WL 1160065 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 15, 2024); Pet’r Reply at 5. In that case, the petitioner
ceased treating her shoulder entirely at the end of February 2020, just three weeks shy of the six-month
period. See 2024 WL 1160065, at *4. I found that her reports of significant pain made it more likely than not
that her pain continued for at least six months. Id. Further, the COVID-19 Pandemic was a reasonable
explanation for the early halt to her treatment. Id. Although this case generally assists Petitioner, it presents
a different factual scenario.
10 Respondent implies that Petitioner was not limited by the Pandemic in seeking medical care because
she had a dermatologist appointment in the time period between January 24, 2020 and October 23, 2020
to imply. Rule 4(c) Report at 8; Resp’t Opp’n at 8. However, Petitioner’s dermatologist appointment occurred
on January 24, 2020, pre-Pandemic, and while she was still treating her left shoulder. See Ex. 2 at 1726.
9

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 10 of 12
C. Petitioner Has Established that Her Pain and Reduced ROM Were
Limited to Her Left Shoulder
Respondent next asserts that Petitioner has not met the third QAI element: that
pain and reduced ROM must be limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered. Rule 4(c) at 9; Resp’t Opp’n at 10-11. In support, Respondent points to
references to Petitioner’s wrist, hands, or right shoulder in the medical records and her
descriptions of her left shoulder pain as radiating to her neck or elbow. Rule 4(c) at 9;
Resp’t Opp’n at 10-11.
This QAI criterion is intended to “guard against compensating claims involving
patterns of pain or reduced range of motion indicative of a contributing etiology beyond
the confines of a musculoskeletal injury to the affected shoulder.” Grossman v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., No. 18-0013V, 2022 WL 779666, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb 15, 2022). However, it is well-established that this QAI does not prevent a petitioner
with “simultaneous areas of pain due to unrelated conditions from also meeting the Table
SIRVA definition.” See, e.g., Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V,
2021 WL 4772097, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 9, 2021).
Respondent thus incorrectly suggests that Petitioner reported a pattern of
symptoms that went beyond her left shoulder by conflating distinct conditions. Petitioner’s
bilateral wrist pain and numbness and tingling of the hands was recognized by Dr.
Papadonikolakis as carpal tunnel syndrome, and diagnosed and treated separately from
her left shoulder complaint. See Ex. 2 at 1612-17. Similarly, it appears that Petitioner had
a pre-existing limitation in her right shoulder ROM of an unknown cause, but none of her
treaters considered this as connected to her left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 1522, 1616; Ex. 5 at
14. And to the extent that Petitioner mentioned neck pain while turning her head at her
first orthopedist appointment, she later denied neck pain at the next appointment.
Compare Ex. 2 at 1522 with Ex. 2 at 1612. None of these issues provide preponderant
evidence that Petitioner’s condition was not limited to her left shoulder.
As to Petitioner’s reports of left shoulder pain that radiated down to her elbow or
to her neck and across her back, I have previously found that claims involving
musculoskeletal pain primarily occurring in the shoulder are valid under the Table even if
there are additional allegations of pain extending to adjacent parts of the body, since the
essence of the claim remains that a vaccine administered to the shoulder primarily caused
pain there. See Cross v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1958V, 2023 WL 120783,
at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 6, 2023). Further, Petitioner’s treaters consistently
assessed her as having a musculoskeletal injury. See Overton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
10

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 11 of 12
Servs., No. 21-2286V, 2024 WL 1699205, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2024). Dr.
McBride noted that Petitioner’s pain was “mainly located along the deltoid,” and she
underwent imaging and PT specifically for a left shoulder injury, not any other issue. See
Ex. 2 at 1523, 1765; Ex. 5 at 59. Respondent’s analysis is “unduly focused on just a few
initial notations.” See Overton, 2024 WL 1699205, at *7.
Respondent’s reliance on Blevins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-385V,
2024 WL 1009562 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 12, 2024), is also misplaced. See Rep’t
Opp’n at 11 (citing). At nearly every appointment, the Blevins petitioner made numerous,
if inconsistent, complaints of left shoulder pain coupled with neck pain, back pain, arm
tingling, and/or hand weakness that began shortly after vaccination. See 2024 WL
1009562, at *1-*3, *5-*6. That petitioner was also diagnosed with chronic cervical and
thoracic pain, and underwent a course of physical therapy specifically for those issues.
Id. at *5-*6. Respondent’s only point of comparison is that Ms. Corpening also reported
radiating pain at her initial appointment. See Resp’t Opp’n at 11. However, contrary to
Respondent’s assertion, Petitioner did not continue to report these non-shoulder issues
throughout her treatment. See id. Unlike in Blevins, Petitioner does not present “extra-
shoulder, competing symptoms” that suggest another etiology or source of her pain. See
2024 WL 1009562, at *6. I therefore find that she has established this QAI element by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement. See generally id.
Based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly established all
requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). Accordingly, she need
not prove causation-in-fact. Section 11(c)(1)(C). I also find that Petitioner has satisfied all
other statutory requirements. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA following the October 31,
2019 flu vaccination.
The case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are encouraged to
pursue informal resolution of an appropriate damages award. If the parties determine that
informal resolution is not possible, they should be prepared to promptly brief the
appropriate award of damages. In making any demand, Petitioner should make sure to
take into account the mild nature of her SIRVA, and not seek to include costs or pain
associated with the comorbid, non-SIRVA issues she was treated for (in particular carpal
tunnel syndrome, which is not reasonably associated with a shoulder injury).
11

Case 1:22-vv-01501-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/06/26 Page 12 of 12
By no later than Monday, February 2, 2026, Petitioner shall file a Status
Report updating me on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12