VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01659
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01659
Petitioner: Lucille Abshire
Filed: 2022-11-08
Decided: 2025-04-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-09
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and possible off-Table shoulder/arm injury
Outcome: pending
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 8, 2022, Lucille Abshire filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 9, 2020 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The case later focused on whether she had proven the specific Vaccine Injury Table definition of SIRVA.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the contemporaneous medical record. The evidence supported some shoulder symptoms after vaccination, but it also included objective forearm swelling, elbow complaints, and imaging findings that did not fit neatly within the Table's requirement that pain and reduced range of motion be limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Respondent argued that the record did not prove a Table SIRVA.

On April 24, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran dismissed the Table SIRVA theory. He did not enter a final denial of every possible theory; instead, he concluded that Ms. Abshire's off-Table causation claim could continue outside the Special Processing Unit. No damages award appears in the available public record.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on October 9, 2020, allegedly causing Table SIRVA or an off-Table shoulder/arm injury; TABLE SIRVA DISMISSED, off-Table claim allowed to continue. Chief SM Corcoran found the record did not prove the Table requirement that symptoms were limited to the vaccinated shoulder, given forearm swelling, elbow complaints, and other findings. No award in available public record. Petition filed November 8, 2022; ruling April 24, 2025. Attorney: Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01659-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-18
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/24/2025) regarding 35 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1659V
LUCILLE ABSHIRE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 24, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On November 8, 2022, Lucille Abshire filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccine she received on October 9, 2020.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters (the “SPU”).
Although the record supports the conclusion that Petitioner likely suffered the
residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months, and suffered onset of pain
1 Because this Fact 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 Fact 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-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 9
within 48 hours after her vaccination, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim must still be
dismissed because her symptoms were not limited to the vaccinated shoulder. This may
leave a causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated, however.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On January 12, 2024, 14 months after the case was initiated, Respondent filed a
Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to compensation.
ECF No. 12. Respondent argued that Petitioner had not provided preponderant evidence
that her pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination or that her symptoms were limited
to the shoulder in which she received the vaccine. Rule 4(c) Report at 7-8.
I subsequently ordered the parties to brief the issue of entitlement. Petitioner filed
her Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), along with additional exhibits, on April 17,
2024. ECF No. 28. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on June 17, 2024, in which he
raised, for the first time, an additional argument that Petitioner had not satisfied the six-
month severity requirement. ECF No. 32. Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on July 1, 2024.
ECF No. 34. The matter is now ripe for decision.
II. Factual History
Petitioner was 83 years old when she received a flu vaccine in her right deltoid on
October 9, 2020. Ex. 10 at 2. Although her medical history included a right knee
replacement, hypertension, and lower back pain, Petitioner had no history of pain or
dysfunction of her right shoulder prior to vaccination. See Ex. 2 at 166-69. She recalled
pain beginning the day after her vaccination that was severe “to the extent that [she]
essentially was unable to use [her] right arm at all.” Ex. 1 at ¶7.
On October 30, 2020 (now three weeks post-vaccination), Petitioner sought
treatment at an urgent care facility. Ex. 13 at 7. She reported “right arm pain and swelling
and weakness in the right hand.” Id. She stated that she “got a flu shot in the right arm
about 3 weeks ago and the symptoms have occurred since that time and are slowly
getting worse.” Id. On exam, she had decreased muscle mass, normal strength, normal
range of motion, and “some very slight swelling in the right forearm.” Id. at 10-11. An
ultrasound was recommended to rule out a blood clot. Id. at 11. The ultrasound,
performed on November 11, 2020, revealed a “thickened appearing” biceps muscle, but
no clot. Ex. 12 at 78-79.
Petitioner followed up with her primary care physician (“PCP”) on November 13,
2020. Ex. 14 at 157. She reported that she had a flu vaccine and that her “right arm
swelled and became weak.” Id. at 158. Her symptoms were improving, however, and she
reported “full function with little tenderness.” Id. No treatment was recommended. Id.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 9
Petitioner states that she “was under the impression from her primary care provider that
there was nothing to be done regarding her right shoulder pain and that she would just
have to give the injury time to heal.” Mot. at 4; Ex. 1 at ¶11.
Petitioner did not seek treatment for her shoulder pain again until August 27, 2021
- more than ten months after her vaccination. During the intervening period, she saw her
orthopedist on January 5, 2021 for an annual follow up after her right knee replacement
and for ongoing knee pain, for which she received a steroid injection. Ex. 6 at 17. She
returned to the orthopedist for another left knee injection six months later, on July 6, 2021.
Id. at 18. Petitioner also saw her PCP twice during the intervening period, on March 23,
2021 and July 13, 2021, to follow up on her hypertension. Ex. 14 at 178, 211. She
expressed that her musculoskeletal pain was controlled on her current regime of
gabapentin and tramadol. Id. at 178, 210. The records of these visits do not include
shoulder pain.
On August 27, 2021, Petitioner established care with a new PCP. Ex. 4 at 7. She
now reported “consistent right arm pain since getting her flu shot last season,” adding that
she had experienced “immediate pain and loss of use of her right arm.” Id. Petitioner
explained that “her PCP at the time did not seem to take her complaint seriously,” but that
“over time, she has noted swelling and masses appearing in her elbow joint.” Id. On exam,
the provider noted atrophy of the right upper arm. Id. at 8. Additional imaging was
recommended. Id.
An MRI of Petitioner’s humerus performed on October 4, 2021, revealed rotator
cuff tendinosis and capsular inflammation, as well as “common extensor and radial
collateral ligament pathology of the elbow.” Ex. 5 at 3. The MRI report also notes “partial
visualization of a reactive glenohumeral effusion with adhesive capsulitis” and a “chronic
appearing subtle partial tear of the radial collateral ligament.” Id.
Petitioner had an initial physical therapy evaluation on October 15, 2021. Ex. 7 at
9. The referring diagnosis was pain and stiffness of the right elbow. Id. Petitioner reported
that she had a flu shot in her right arm last year, and she lost the use of the arm for six
weeks. Id. She reported current pain in the biceps and “at the medial elbow.” Id. On exam,
there was swelling in the “lower R arm” and reduced range of motion and reduced strength
at the elbow. Id. at 10-11. Petitioner shoulder was not assessed. She attended fourteen
sessions through December 2, 2021. See Ex. 7 at 9-71. Petitioner admits that the physical
therapy did not address shoulder pain. Mot. at 5.
Petitioner returned to her new PCP on January 5, 2022 with urinary symptoms. Ex.
4 at 16. She also expressed concern “about her right elbow joint pain and swelling in her
right arm.” Id. The provider reviewed Petitioner’s MRI and noted her elbow pathology and
adhesive capsulitis. Id. at 19. Petitioner was advised to continue PT. Id.
3

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 9
Petitioner returned to her PCP on March 7, 2022 with continued complaints of
shoulder pain “that started over a year ago.” Ex. 4 at 26. She indicated that she had hired
a lawyer who recommended that she be evaluated by an orthopedist. Id. Petitioner was
given a referral to orthopedics for further evaluation. Id. at 28
Petitioner saw her orthopedist for right shoulder treatment on April 4, 2022. Ex. 6
at 20. She reported her flu shot in October 2020, and that “for 6 weeks after that she
could not move her arm.” Id. She noted that “now she still has pain in that shoulder and
arm and has never gone completely away.” Id. On exam, Petitioner had “functional range
of motion of her shoulder” with pain and positive impingement signs. Id. The orthopedist
noted atrophy down her arm. Id. An x-ray of her shoulder confirmed degenerative
changes. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendinitis and AC joint arthritis with
impingement. Id. She was given a cortisone injection. Id. Petitioner returned on May 10,
2022 with reports of improvement after the injection. Id. at 21. Her exam revealed
improved range of motion to “almost full” and negative impingement signs. Id. She was
referred back to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner had a physical therapy shoulder evaluation on May 20, 2022. Ex. 7 at
74. She reported “chronic shoulder pain since 2020,” but did not mention her flu shot. Id.
She had three additional sessions of physical therapy through June 6, 2022. Id. at 80-92.
There are no additional records of treatment for Petitioner’s right arm pain.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
4

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 9
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act § 11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. §
13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
5

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 9
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Severity
To satisfy the Act’s severity requirement, Petitioner must demonstrate that she
continued to suffer the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury until at least April 9,
2021 - six months after her likely post-vaccination onset. There is no dispute that
Petitioner consistently sought treatment in October and November 2020, but then did not
receive additional treatment for approximately eight months, until August 2021.
Respondent argues that at her appointment on November 13, 2020, “Petitioner’s
symptoms were improving and [she] had full function and little tenderness.” Resp. at 12.
Respondent also notes that Petitioner had two visits with her orthopedist and two visits
with her PCP during the gap in treatment where she did not seek treatment for shoulder
pain. Id. at 12-13.
At the same time, however, there is evidence in the record that Petitioner’s
shoulder pain continued throughout the period in question. When Petitioner returned to
treatment on August 27, 2021, she was explicit in contending that the pain she was
experiencing was “consistent” since her vaccination. Ex. 4 at 7. And Petitioner reiterated
that fact through her remaining treatment. See e.g., Ex. 6 at 20 (She noted that “now she
still has pain in that shoulder and arm and has never gone completely away.”).
Further, although the long treatment gap included several intervening medical
visits, she has provided a reasonable explanation for why she did not at this time report
shoulder issues. Petitioner believed her original PCP did not take her complaints
seriously, and thus did not expect to receive treatment that would help her symptoms. Ex.
1 at ¶11; Ex. 4 at 20. The two intervening PCP visits noted by Respondent were with that
same doctor, whom Petitioner felt would not be helpful with her shoulder pain. See Ex.
14 at 178, 211. This is further corroborated by the fact that when Petitioner did resume
treatment for her shoulder pain, she found a new PCP. See Ex. 4 at 20. Finally,
6

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 9
Petitioner’s visits with her orthopedist during this time were for pre-existing knee
problems, including twice-yearly cortisone injections into her left knee. See Ex. 6 at 17-
18. Petitioner did not seek care from her orthopedist for her shoulder problem until she
requested and received a referral from her PCP for that specific problem. See Ex. 4 at
26-28. In contrast, Respondent has not identified any evidence in the record that
Petitioner’s pain fully resolved in less than six months or of another cause for Petitioner’s
symptoms after the gap in treatment.
As a result, the evidence supports a finding that severity was established (although
the almost one-year treatment gap bears heavily on the damages, to the extent any are
to be awarded in this case).
B. Onset
Respondent next argues that 48-hour onset cannot be established because
Petitioner waited “more than a month” to report her shoulder pain to a medical
professional, and “then did not seek any treatment for another eight months.” Resp. at 8-
9. In support, Respondent points to other treatment Petitioner received during that period
without addressing her shoulder pain. Id. at 9.
However, there is ample support in the record that Petitioner likely experienced
pain within 48 hours after her vaccination. In her declaration, Petitioner recalled pain
beginning the day after her vaccination that was severe “to the extent that [she] essentially
was unable to use [her] right arm at all.” Ex. 1 at ¶7. Petitioner then sought treatment for
her pain only three weeks after her vaccination, reporting a flu shot three weeks ago and
experiencing symptoms “since that time.” Ex. 13 at 7. Although there was a sizeable gap
in treatment, Petitioner explained that she did not seek further treatment at the time
because she felt that her PCP did not take her complaints seriously and that she believed
there was nothing to be done to help her symptoms. See Ex. 1 at ¶11; Ex. 4 at 7; Mot. at
5. When Petitioner returned to treatment after the gap, she clearly stated that she had
experienced “consistent right arm pain since getting her flu shot last season,” and that
she had had “immediate pain and loss of use of her right arm” after the injection. Ex. 4 at
7. And throughout her treatment, Petitioner consistently liked her pain to her flu shot, and
there is no evidence in the record suggesting a different onset.
C. Symptoms limited to Vaccinated Shoulder
Respondent notes that Petitioner’s pain “was not limited to her vaccinated
shoulder,” but included pain and swelling in her elbow and later, numbness and tingling
in her right hand. Resp. at 9-10. This argument finds substantially more support in the
filed medical records.
7

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 9
Petitioner’s treatment records contain repeated complaints of pain and swelling in
her elbow and lower arm, based on objective findings outside of her shoulder. At her first
urgent care visit on October 30, 2020, three weeks after her vaccination, Petitioner was
found to have swelling in her forearm. Ex. 13 at 11. When she returned for treatment in
August 2021, Petitioner reported increasing symptoms in her elbow. Ex. 4 at 7.
Petitioner’s MRI confirmed elbow pathology, including a partial tear. Ex. 5 at 3.
Thereafter, Petitioner had 14 physical therapy treatments focused on her right elbow, and
not on her shoulder. See Ex. 7 at 9-71. Petitioner continued to complain of right elbow
pain and arm symptoms during her treatment in 2022. See Ex. 4 at 16; Ex. 6 at 20.
Petitioner argues that her elbow symptoms were “unrelated and asymptomatic”
prior to her vaccination. Repl. at 3. She explains that her reports of symptoms in her elbow
and her arm are all explained by the six weeks during which she did not use her arm and
experienced atrophy. Id. Petitioner concedes that her “elbow pain should be a factor in
her damages,” but should not preclude a finding that she suffered a Table SIRVA.
However, in this case, Petitioner did not merely complain of pain extending from her
shoulder pain. From her first urgent care visit, Petitioner had objective swelling in her
forearm. Ex. 13 at 11. Then, as her elbow symptoms worsened, an MRI revealed
significant elbow pathology separate from any shoulder pathology and Petitioner received
treatment for her elbow pain. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 7 at 9-71. When Petitioner returned to
her doctor after her first course of physical therapy, she was concerned about her “elbow
pain and swelling,” rather than shoulder pain. See Ex. 4 at 16. Further, the fact that an
MRI of Petitioner’s humerus, rather than her shoulder, was ordered and that physical
therapy was ordered for her elbow pain, rather than for her shoulder pain (which existed
simultaneously), suggests that both the providers and Petitioner placed a higher
emphasis upon the elbow symptoms at that time.
Because Petitioner experienced both subjective and objective symptoms outside
of the vaccinated shoulder, in her elbow and forearm, she cannot preponderantly
establish the third QAI criterion of a Table SIRVA claim.
Conclusion
Petitioner has established that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged
vaccine-related injury for at least six months and that her pain began within 48 hours of
her vaccination. However, as I also find that Petitioner’s pain was not limited to her right
shoulder, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is dismissed. The case will be reassigned to a
Special Master outside of the SPU for adjudication as a causation-in-fact claim.
8

Case 1:22-vv-01659-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/18/26 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9