VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01517 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01517 Petitioner: Helen Draper Filed: 2022-10-14 Decided: 2025-12-29 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-10-17 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 60000 AI-assisted case summary: On October 14, 2022, Helen Draper filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 17, 2020 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The case first required a factual ruling because respondent disputed the vaccine site and argued that Ms. Draper's history of chronic left-shoulder pain and dysfunction could explain her complaints. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on August 15, 2025 that the vaccine had been administered in her left arm. The public fact ruling and later stipulation establish the contested situs issue and the settlement terms, but they do not give a complete treatment narrative, imaging history, injection history, therapy course, or daily functional story. Respondent continued to deny that Ms. Draper sustained a Table SIRVA, denied causation, and denied vaccine-related sequelae. The parties nevertheless resolved the case by stipulation. On December 29, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran adopted the stipulation and awarded $60,000.00 as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 17, 2020 allegedly causing SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated. COMPENSATED by stipulation after fact ruling. Respondent disputed vaccine situs and pointed to chronic left-shoulder history; Chief SM Corcoran found the vaccination was in the left arm, then adopted a $60,000 lump-sum stipulation. Petition October 14, 2022; fact ruling August 15, 2025; compensation decision December 29, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01517-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-17 Pages: 8 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/15/2025) regarding 40 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Order to Show Cause, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1517V HELEN DRAPER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 15, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE1 On October 14, 2022, Helen Draper filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received in her left shoulder on October 17, 2020. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine alleged as causal was more likely than not administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder, as alleged. 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-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 2 of 8 I. Relevant Procedural History Following Respondent’s medical review of this case, the parties attempted to informally resolve the issue of damages but were ultimately unsuccessful. ECF Nos. 27- 36. Respondent thereafter filed his Rule 4(c) Report in defense of this case on November 4, 2024, arguing (in relevant part) that Petitioner cannot establish she received the subject vaccination in her left arm, as her vaccination administration record (a computer- generated form), does not list the site of vaccination other than with an undated, handwritten annotation made by an unknown individual. ECF No. 37 at 14-15 (citing Ex. 2 at 2). Petitioner subsequently submitted supplemental vaccine administration records from her local pharmacy (reflecting a handwritten circle around left arm situs) and billing records in winter 2025. ECF Nos. 38-39. The issue of situs is ripe for resolution. II. Authority Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this 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, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19. The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 2 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 3 of 8 or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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 § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). III. Finding of Fact The following finding of fact is based on a complete review of the record, including the petition, all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I highlight the following:3 • Petitioner received the subject vaccination on October 17, 2020, at her local pharmacy. Ex. 2 at 2-3. The original vaccination administration record provided in this case is computer-generated and lacks an entry bearing on situs. Ex. 2 at 2. However, it also contains a handwritten notation that reads “administered in left shoulder.” Id. • Following the filing of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (disputing vaccine situs), Petitioner submitted supplemental pharmacy records reflecting the site of administration of the subject vaccination. Ex. 26 at 3. This vaccination administration record is dated October 17, 2020, and appears as follows: 3 While I have reviewed all submitted evidence in this case, only such evidence regarding vaccine situs will be discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary. 3 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 4 of 8 • Three days post vaccination, on October 20, 2020, Petitioner returned to her chiropractor stating she had a flu shot and “has had bad left arm pain ever since[.]” Ex. 5 at 58. The chiropractor felt that Petitioner “present[ed] like frozen shoulder – likely injection was too high in shoulder or a flu shot side effect.” Id. • During Petitioner’s follow-up chiropractor visits thereafter (through November 2020), Petitioner reported left arm symptoms that improved over time. Ex. 5 at 60- 79. For instance, on October 23, 2020, she noted ongoing left shoulder symptoms but improvement in her pain and movement. Id. at 60. By November 23, 2020, Petitioner stated that her “left shoulder [wa]s doing a lot better, but [her pain was] not gone.” Id. at 78. Although physical examinations were conducted during these chiropractic visits, Petitioner’s left shoulder was not mentioned in the examination notes. See id. at 60-79. • On January 22, 2021, Petitioner saw an orthopedic surgeon complaining of “[s]houlder pain since she had flu shot in Oct [sic] 2020.” Ex. 6 at 40. The duration of time of the pain was noted as “Oct/2020” and the affected shoulder was listed as “the left.” Id. On examination, Petitioner exhibited tenderness to palpation of the posterior shoulder, normal range of motion (“ROM”), but pain with abduction and internal rotation. Id. at 41. She underwent an x-ray of the left shoulder (revealing severe glenohumeral joint degenerative changes) and received a steroid injection in the left shoulder for pain control. Id. Her treater felt she had a “SIRVA in the setting of severe [glenohumeral osteoarthritis (“OA”)].” Id. • Petitioner returned to her orthopedic surgeon on June 23, 2021, for treatment of ongoing left shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 28. She stated that she had been active in her yard over the last three weeks, and “has noted more pain in the left shoulder.” Id. The physical examination of the left shoulder was unchanged. Id. The orthopedist’s assessment was “SIRVA in the setting of severe [glenohumeral OA] that improved with cortisone injection in January[;]” the treater felt Petitioner’s pain was “likely 4 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 5 of 8 related to her OA with some element of persistent tendonitis.” Id. Petitioner received another steroid injection in the left shoulder. Id. at 28-29. • Beginning on December 20, 2021, Petitioner sought care with an acupuncturist for “severe” left shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 17. She reported a history of a “SIRVA – bad vaccination 1 yr [sic] ago[.]” Id. She sought treatment for her left shoulder with acupuncture through March 2022. See id. at 5-17. • Petitioner thereafter had regular orthopedic follow up visits for left shoulder complaints (that she linked to the subject vaccination) throughout 2022 and into 2023. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 32-40; Ex. 9 at 7-9; Ex. 10 at 245, 252-53, 415, 434, 463- 65; Ex. 11 at 18-23, 58, 60-63; Ex. 17 at 23-24, 44-47; Ex. 19 at 148-51; Ex. 21 at 11-16, 47, 93-98, 109-11, 121-25; Ex. 23 at 37-38. • In her affidavit, Petitioner attested that she received the subject vaccination on October 17, 2020, “extremely high on [her] left shoulder.” Ex. 1 ¶ 7. On the same day of vaccination, she had “severe pain in [her] left arm at the vaccination injection site.” Id. ¶ 8. She then described her treatment for left shoulder pain thereafter. See id. ¶¶ 9-21; see also Ex. 16 ¶¶ 7-8. ANALYSIS The above evidence preponderantly supports the conclusion that Petitioner likely received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder, as alleged. Though not filed at the time of the filing of Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (disputing situs), the supplemental vaccination record since provided by Petitioner weighs heavily in support of a favorable finding regarding the site of vaccine administration. Indeed, the record is a handwritten entry, encircling the notation for left arm situs for a flu vaccine administered on the date in question. Ex. 26 at 3. As I have often noted, it is not unusual for the information regarding situs of vaccination set forth in administration records to be incorrect.4 In many instances, the information regarding situs has been prerecorded and is not subsequently corrected, 4 See, e.g., Arnold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1038V 2021 WL 2908519, at *4 (Fed. CL. Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2021); Syed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1364V, 2021 WL 2229829, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2021); Ruddy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 19-1998V, 2021 WL 1291777, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-0811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018). 5 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 6 of 8 even if the vaccine was actually administered in the opposing arm.5 Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing on the issue of site, and merit some weight as a result, they are not per se reliable simply because they come first. In fact, I have previously determined that the very nature of vaccination record creation provides some basis for not accepting them as the evidence worthy of highest probative weight. See, e.g., Rizvi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-881V, 2022 WL 2284311, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2022). And I routinely give greater weight to vaccination records that are handwritten – meaning those that require specific action on the part of the vaccine administrator (an indicia of the effort to provide correct information). See, e.g., Rizvi, 2022 WL 2284311, at *5; Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020). The supplemental vaccine administration form in this case is a handwritten entry that is consistent with Petitioner’s assertion and thus supports a finding of left arm situs. Indeed, this entry is particularly persuasive when weighed against Petitioner’s clear, consistent, and close-in-time reports of left shoulder pain following her receipt of a flu vaccine in that arm. The record of Petitioner’s October 20, 2020 chiropractor visit noting she has had “bad left arm pain ever since” a flu shot (Ex. 5 at 58), is probative. This record is from only three days post vaccination and is the most contemporaneous record other than the vaccine administration record itself. Petitioner’s left shoulder administration arguments are further corroborated by her October 23, 2020 follow-up chiropractic visit (three days later) (Ex. 5 at 60), and visits thereafter, where she consistently reported that her left shoulder pain began with receipt of the subject flu vaccination in that arm. And as the above-referenced medical records further establish, when seeking medical treatment on every subsequent occasion, Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain attributable to her flu vaccination, and she received treatment for said shoulder, specifically. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 104, 108, 149; Ex. 6 at 18, 28-29, 40; Ex. 8 at 5-17. I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner received her October 17, 2020 flu vaccine in her left arm. To rule otherwise, the overall record would need to contain more instances in which a different administration situs was suggested or supported. 5 In a recent ruling by another special master, the pharmacist who had administered the relevant vaccination actually testified that she inputs “left deltoid” into the computer system as a matter of course, without confirming the actual site of vaccination, based upon the assumption that most vaccinees are right-handed. Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021). 6 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 7 of 8 IV. Order to Show Cause and Scheduling Order While I have determined that Petitioner’s vaccination was administered in her left shoulder, as alleged, this Ruling does not resolve the remaining issues related to Petitioner’s ability to establish a Table SIRVA claim. Respondent’s remaining objections to the Table SIRVA claim have some merit, and thus will likely require more factual development of the record and/or explanation from Petitioner. For instance, in contesting both the first and fourth QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA, Respondent argues that Petitioner had a history of pain and dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination, and relatedly was diagnosed with a condition that would explain her post-vaccination symptoms. Respondent’s Report at 15 (citing Section 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv)). Specifically, Petitioner has a history of chronic left shoulder pain (plus symptoms of subacromial impingement syndrome) and OA – which was confirmed by x-ray both in 2019 (pre-vaccination) and throughout 2021 and beyond (post vaccination). See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 5, 155-56; Ex. 4 at 2-6; Ex. 5 at 2-57. In fact, Petitioner’s January 22, 2021 left shoulder x-ray – approximately three months post vaccination – showed severe OA and glenohumeral joint degenerative changes. Ex. 4 at 5-6; Ex. 6 at 40-41; Ex. 7 at 5. More so, as Petitioner’s left shoulder pain went on (i.e., after June 2021), Petitioner’s treaters suspected her OA was responsible for (at least some of) her pain, rather than her SIRVA (as originally proposed in some circumstances). See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 28, 40 (the orthopedist’s feeling that Petitioner had “SIRVA in the setting of severe [glenohumeral] OA”); Ex. 8 at 5-17 (the acupuncturist’s note from February 2022 that Petitioner had both SIRVA and arthritis, and that the SIRVA may have “resolved”); Ex. 9 at 9 (noting a diagnosis of left shoulder glenohumeral OA, with surgery as a proposed treatment option); Ex. 10 at 252-53 (a record from Petitioner’s May 2022 left shoulder arthroscopy showing pre- and post-operative diagnoses of degenerative/severe arthritis with rotator cuff pathology). Such diagnostic findings of OA - present before, at the same time as the manifestation of Petitioner’s alleged vaccine injury, and then after the fact - could thus very well explain Petitioner’s post vaccination symptoms, precluding Petitioner from establishing a Table claim. Better substantiation of that claim is necessary. CONCLUSION Despite a finding of left arm situs, as alleged, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim cannot proceed unless Petitioner offers sufficient evidence demonstrating that her pre- existing condition and symptoms (also present after vaccination) could not explain her 7 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 41 Filed 09/17/25 Page 8 of 8 post-vaccination shoulder symptoms. I will afford her the chance to file such evidence or to provide other argument that her injury was consistent with a SIRVA. It is important that Petitioner take seriously the chance I am providing her to substantiate her claim. It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow court orders and to provide the evidence to support her claim. Failure to follow court orders, as well as failure to file the medical records and other evidence to support her claim, may result in dismissal of Petitioner’s claim. Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 21(b). Accordingly, Petitioner is therefore hereby ORDERED to Show Cause why her Table claim should not be dismissed for insufficient evidence by no later than Wednesday, October 15, 2025. If Petitioner determines that no additional evidence exists in support of her Table claim, she shall file a status report so confirming, with the knowledge that (at a minimum) her Table SIRVA claim will be dismissed, and her case may ultimately be transferred out of SPU thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 8 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01517-1 Date issued/filed: 2026-01-30 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/29/2025) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1517V HELEN DRAPER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: December 29, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On October 14, 2022, Helen Draper filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 17, 2020. Pet. She further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and further denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s current condition. 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-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on December 29, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $60,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS HELEN DRAPER, Petitioner, No. 22-1517V Chief Special Master Corcoran v. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: l. Helen Draper ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l Oto 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of an influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I 00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 17, 2020. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("S(RV A") within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21 (a)(I ), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum payment of $60,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner's counsel's IOLT A account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U .S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment on entitlement in this case, and afrer petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)( I), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. I 0. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XlX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 7 I I. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. I 2. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of4 2 U.S.C. § 300aa-l5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 etseq.,on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 17, 2020, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 14, 2022, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 22-l 5 I 7V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 3 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 7 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION 4 Case 1:22-vv-01517-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: HELEN DRAPER ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ~ ERR : ~ - ~ \ b & ~ DA YID C. RICHARDS HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Christensen & Jensen, P.C. Deputy Director 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Torts Branch Salt Lake City, Utah 841 l t Civil Division Phone: (801) 323-5000 U.S. Department of Justice Email: David.richards@chrisjen.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AI TORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEAL TH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. ~i~~:gned by Jeffrey Beach -S t±1. :~~02s.12.1014:59:48 for ~ CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH DORIAN HURL~ Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fi:ihc~ Lane, l4W-18 Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov Dated: l2 /2.1 /zozS 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01517-cl-extra-11248639 Date issued/filed: 2026-01-30 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10782015 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1517V HELEN DRAPER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: December 29, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On October 14, 2022, Helen Draper filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 17, 2020. Pet. She further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and further denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s current condition. 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). Nevertheless, on December 29, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $60,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS HELEN DRAPER, Petitioner, No. 22-1517V Chief Special Master Corcoran v. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: l. Helen Draper ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l Oto 34 (the " Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of an influenza ("flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I 00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 17, 2020. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("S(RV A") within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofjudgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21 (a)(I ), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum payment of $60,000.00 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofjudgment on entitlement in this case, and afrer petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I(a)( I), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. I 0. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XlX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 I I. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. I2. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 etseq.,on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from , or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 17, 2020, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 14, 2022, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 22-l 5 I 7V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 3 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION 4 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: HELEN DRAPER ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ~ ERR : ~ - ~\b&~ HEATHER L. PEARLMAN DAYID C. RICHARDS Christensen & Jensen, P.C. Deputy Director 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Torts Branch Salt Lake City, Utah 841 l t Civil Division Phone: (801) 323-5000 U.S. Department of Justice Email: David.richards@chrisjen.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AITORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. ~i~~:gned by Jeffrey Beach -S :~~02s.12.1014:59:48 for ~ t±1. CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH DORIAN HURL~ Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fi:ihc~ Lane, l4W-18 Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov Dated: l2 /2.1 / zozS 5